DUKE 

UNIVERSITY 

LIBRARY 


Treasure  "Room 


[No.  IX.] 
THE 


American  Remembrancer ; 

O   R, 

AN  IMPARTIAL  COLLECTION 


ESSAYS,    RESOLVES, 
SPEECHES,    &c 

RELATIVE,     OR   HAVING  AFFINITY,    TO  THE 

TREATY  with  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


— <-«^^«^>^^>^»§>»-> — 

VOLUME     III. 

(  6  z.  8  3 

PHILADELPHIA 


PRINTED    BY     HENRY    TUCKNISS, 
FOR    MATHEW    CAREY,     NO.     I  1 8,     MARKET-STREET. 


NOVEMBER    28,    1795.- 


CONTENTS. 

Page 

1.  Addrefs  to  the  Independent  Citizens  of  Virginia  3 

2.  Memorial  and  Petition  of  a  number  of  the  Citizens 

of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia  to  the  General 

Affembly  t/xreof  4 

3.  Tally,  No.  II.          -                                         -  12 

4.  Camillas,  No,  XXI*            -            -             -  15 

5. No.  XXII.             -             -  24 

6. No.  XXIII.             -             -  36 

7. i\fo.  XXIV.        ...  45 

8. 2&  XXV.         ...  56 

9.  CW<?,  No.  XVI.  63 

10.  Atticus,  No.  VI. 67 

11. No.  VII.  7° 


American  Remembrancer,  qffc. 

From   the  Petersburg  Intelligencer. 
To  tie  Independent  Citizens  cf  Virginia. 


THE  prefident  of  the  United  States,  in  his  letter  to  the 
felectmen  of  Boftcn,  dated  28th  uf  July,  1795,  copies 
whereof  have  fince  been  tranfmitted  to  fimdar  meetings  of  the 
people  in  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  having,  as  it  is  con- 
ceived, virtually  refuted  to  view  the  representation  of  the  peo- 
ple as  a  fource  of  information  wo;  thy  cf  his  confuieraiion,  in 
deliberating  upon  the  propriety  of  ratifying  or  rejecting  the  late 
treaty  between  Great  Britain  ami  the  United  States,  as  recom- 
mended by  the  fenate — and  having,  as  it  is  believed,  firll  re- 
fufed  his  confent  thereto,  until  Great  Britain  mould  withdraw 
her  infamous  orders  for  feizing  provifions  in  American  velTels 
bound  to  France — and  fince  that  time,  during  the  continuance 
of  the  fame  orders,  in  the  midft  of  numerous  reprefentations 
from  the  people  in  almoft  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  difap- 
proving  the  fatal  inilrument,  having  actually  proceeded  to  its 
ratification,  and  given  it  all  the  energy  which  his  conltitution- 
aj  functions  could  effect ;  and  having,  by  thefe  proceedings, 
rendered  all  further  reprefentations  and  applications  to  him, 
upon  the  fubject,  abfurd  and  nugatory — It  is  important,  when 
fuch  inattention  to  the  public  voice  is  manifefted,  that  the  peo- 
ple fhould  boldly  exercife  their  right  of  addreffing  their  objec- 
tions to  all  other  conftituted  authorities,  within  the  United 
States,  who  pofTefs  any  agency  relative  to  this  highly  interefting 
fubjeft. 

Upon  this  principle,  the  following  Petition  to  the  General 
Afiembly  of  Virginia,  in  virtue  of  their  conftitutional  right  of 
appointing  fenators  for  this  ftate,  to  the  congrefs  of  the  United 
States,  is  fubmitted  to  the  independent  citizens  thereof.  It  is 
prefumed,  that  the  time,  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  aft 
fembly,  is  too  fhort  to  afford  that  general  circulation  of  the 
petition  throughout  the  ftate,  which  is  defirable  :  but  it  is  hoped, 
that  fuch  patriotic  citizens,  as  may  approve  its  contents,  wili 
be  active  in  favoring  their  fellow  citizens  with  an  opportunity 
of  teftifying,  in  like  manner,  their  approbation,  by  their  refpec- 
tive  fubferiptions  thereto. 


kef  2-?^ 


4  •  Virginia  Memorial  and  Petition. 

Through  thefe  means,  one  more  effort  may  be  made,  by  a 
declaration  of  the  public  fentimenr,  to  prevent  the  final  ratifi- 
cation and  ultimate  energy  of  an  inftrument,  which  is  deemed 
fatal  to  the  interefls,  the  happinefs,  and  perhaps,  finally,  to  the 
liberty  and  independence  of  the  United  States. 

Oflobcr  12,  1795. 


To  the  General  Affembly  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virgui'ui. 

The  Memorial  and  Petition  of  the  Subfcribers  thereof, 
RefpeBfully  fieweth — 

THAT  they  have  feen  and  maturely  confidered  the  treaty, 
lately  negociated  with  Great  Britain,  and  conditionally 
ratified  by  the  president  and  fenate  of  the  United  States. 

That  they  infer,  from  the  nature  of  the  condition  annexed 
to  the  ratification,  that  the  faid  treaty  ought  to  receive,  and 
muft  again  receive,  the  fan£tion  of  the  conftituted  authorities, 
before  it  can  be  finally  binding  on  the  United  States;  in  as 
much  as  the  indeterminate  fufpenfion  of  that  part  of  the  trea- 
ty, which  relates  to  the  trade  between  the  United  States  and 
the  Weft  Indies,  mull  be  made  determinate,  in  the  new  article 
piopofed  to  be  added ;  and  in  as  much  as  the  connexion  efta- 
blifhed  by  that  article,  between  the  parts  fufpenderi,  and  the 
temporary  refidue  of  the  treaty,  conftitute  them  eflentially 
conditions  of  each  other,  and  muft  involve  the  latter  in  the 
fate  of  the  former,  whereby  a  change  will  be  made,  both  in 
the  form  and  fubftance  of  the  inftrument,  that  will  be  equiva- 
lent to  a  new  compact. 

That  in  the  prefent  ftage  of  the  tranfa£tion,  they  deem  it 
their  right  and  their  duty,  to  purfue  every  conftitutional  and 
proper  mode  of  urging  thofe  objections  to  the  treaty,  which, 
in  their  judgment,  require  to  be  entirely  removed,  before  it 
ought  to  be  finally  eftablifhed. 

That  under  this  conviction,  they  fubmit  the  following  obfer- 
vations  to  the  confideration  of  the  general  aflembly. 

I.  Even  "  waving  the  merits  of  the  refpective  complaints  and 
pretenfions  of  the  two  parties,"  as  to  the  inexecution  of  the  trea- 
ty of  peace,  it  is  reafonable  to  view  the  two  parties  as  equally 
culpable,  or  equally  blamelefs,  and  to  determine  that  the  exe- 


Vise ini a  Memorial  and  Petition.  5 

cation  of  the  treaty  of  peace  equally  by  both  ought  to  have 
been  provided  for.  Yet,  whilft  the  United  States  are  to  comply, 
in  the  molt  ample  manner,  with  the  article  unfulfilled  by  them, 
and  to  make  compenfation  for  whatever  loffcs  may  have  accrued 
from  their  delay  j  Gveat  Britain  is  relcafed  altogether,  from  arie 
of  the  articles  unfuifilied  by  her,  and  is  not  obliged  to  make 
the  fmalleit  compenfation  for  the  damages  which  have  accrued 
from  her  delay,   in  fulfilling  the  other. 

Thefe  equitable  and  reciprocal  claims  of  the  United  States 
are  not  even  allowed  the  chance  of  arbitration. 

This  inequality  of  terms,  is  greatly  aggravated  b,y  other  con- 
ceffions,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  which,  Lef.des 
adding  to  the  violation  of  the  conftitution,  artfully  intro.lr.cv.l 
in  this  treaty,  may,  in  a  great  meafure,  defeat  the  good  conle- 
quences  of  a  furrender  of  the  Weftern  polls,  if  that  article  of 
the  treaty  fhould  be  faithfully  executed  by  Great  Britain. 

The  Britifh  fettlers  and  traders,  within  an  indefinite  tract  of 
country,  are  allowed  to  retain  both  their  land  and  allegiance  at 
the  fame  time,  and  confequently  to  keep  up  a  foreign  and  hoflile 
influence  over  the  Indians,  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States. 

The  Indians,  within  thefe  limits,  are  encouraged  to  continue 
their  trade  with  the  Britifh,  by  the  permiffion  to  bring  their 
goods,  duty  free,  from  Canada,  where  the  goods  being  charged 
with  no  fuch  impoft  as  is  payable  on  the  goods  of  the  United 
States,  will  be  offered  for  fale  witfa  that  tempting  preference^  a 
regulation  alfo,  but  too  likely  to  cloak  the  fraud  of  fmuggling 
traders  in  a  country  otherwise  favorable  to  them. 

Under  a  like  femblance  of  reciprocity,  the  advantage  fecured 
to  the  United  States  in  the  fur  trade,  by  their  poffeffion  of  the 
carrying  places,  is  abandoned  to  the  fuperiority  of  Britifh 
capital,  and   the  wfecurity  of  the  Canada   duty  or  duties   on 


• 


imports 

A  part  only  of  the  pods,  harbours,  and  Says,  of  a  fingle 
Britifh  province,  is  made  free  to  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  in  confideration  of  a  freedom  of  all  their  pods,  har* 
bours,  and  bays,  to  Britifh  fubjecls.  The  goods  and  merchan- 
dize of  the  United  States  not  entirely  prohibited  by  Canada 
(but  which,  in  fact,  are  always  prohibited,  when  partial  and 
temporary  admiffions  are  not  dictated  by  neceffity)  may  be  car- 
ried there  in  confideration  of  a  free  nrimiffion  from  Canada,  of 
all  goods  and  merchandize  not  entirely  prohibited  by  the  United 
States,  where  there  never  is,  in  fa£t,  this  entire  prohibition. 
A  like  itipulation,  liable  to  the  like  obfervation,  is  extended  to 
the  exports  of  the  United  States,  and  the  province  of  Canada, 

Vol.  III.  B 


6  Virginia  Memorial  and  Petition. 

There  are  further  inftances  of  a  nominal  and  deluGve  recipro- 
city. 

In  the  cafe  of  the  Miffiflippi,  there  is  not  even  an  oftenfible 
or  nominal  reciprocity.  The  pods  and  places  on  its  eallern 
fide,  are  to  be  equally  free  to  both  parties;  although  the  treaty 
itfelf  fuppofes  that  the  courfe  of  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
United  States,  will  throw  the  Britifh  beyond  the  very  fource  of 
that  river.  This  item  of  the  treaty  is  the  more  to  be  noticed, 
as  a  repetition  and  extenfion,  under  fuch  circumftances,  of  the 
ftipulated  privileges  of  Great  Britain  on  the  Miffiflippi,  will  be 
conftrued  into  a  partiality  in  the  United  States,  to  the  interefts 
and  views  of  that  nation  on  the  American  continent,  not  likely 
to  conciliate  thofe  from  whom  an  amicable  adjultment  of  the 
Miffiflippi  is  expected ;  and  was,  no  doubt,  intended  by  Great 
Britain  as  a  fnare  to  our  good  underftanding  with  'he  nation 
mod  jealous  of  her  encroachment  and  aggrandizement. 

II.  Without  remarking  the  inexplicit  pfovifion  for  redreffing 
paft  fpoliations  and  vexations,  no  fufficient  precautions  are  'v 
taken  againft;  them  in  future.  On  the  contrary,  by  omitting 
to  provide  for  the  refpect  due  to  fea-letters,  paflports  and  cer- 
tificates, and  for  other  cuftomary  fafe-guards  to  neutral  veflels, 
**  a  general  fearch  warrant"  (in  the  ftrong,  but  juft  language 
of  our  fellow  citizens  of  Charlelton)  is  granted  againft  the  A- 
merican  navigation.  Examples  of  fuch  provifions  were  to  be 
found  in  our  other  treaties,  as  well  as  in  the  treaties  of  other 
nations.  And  it  is  matter  of  juft  furprize,  that  they  fhould 
have  no  place  in  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  whofe  conduct 
on  the  feas,  fo  particularly  fuggefted  and  enforced  every  guard 
to  our  rights  that  could  be  reafonably  infifted  on. 

By  omitting  to  provide  againft  the  arbitrary  feizure  and  im- 
prifonment  of  the  American  feamen,  that  valuable  clafs  of  ci- 
tizens remains  expofed  to  all  the  outrages,  and  our  commerce 
to  all  the  interruptions,  hitherto  experienced  from  that  caufe. 

By  exprefsly  admitting,  that  provifions  are  to  be  held  contra* 
band,  in  cafes  other  than  when  bound  to  an  inverted  place,  and 
impliedly  admitting  that  fuch  cafes  exift  at  prefent — not  only  a 
retrofpeclive  fanction  may  be  given  to  proceedings  againft 
which  an  indemnification  is  claimed,  but  an  apparent  licenfe 
is  granted  to  frefh  and  more  rapacious  depredations  on  our 
lawful  commerce  ;  and  facts  feiem  to  fhow,  that  fuch  is  to  be 
the  fruit  of  this  impolitic  conceffion.  It  is  conceived,  that  the 
pretext,  fet  up  by  Great  Britain,  of  befieging  and  ftarving  whole 
nations,  and  the  doctrine  grounded  thereon,  of  a  right  to  in- 
tercept the  cultomary  trade  of  neutral  nations,  in  articles  not 
contraband,  ought  never  to  have  been  admitted  into  a  treaty 


Virginia  Memorial  and  Petition.  7 

of  the  United  States — Becaufe,  1.  It  is  a  general  outrage  on 
humanity,  and  an  attack  on  the  ufeful  intercourfe  of  nations. 
2.  It  appears,  that  the  doctrine  was  denied  by  the  executive, 
in  the  difcufftons  with  Mr.  Hammond,  the  Britifh  minifter,  and 
that  demands  of  compenfation,  founded  on  that  denial,  are  now 
depending.  3.  As  provifions  conftitute  not  lefs  than  two-thirds 
of  our  exports,  and  Great  Britain  is  nearly  half  her  time  at 
war,  an  admiflion  of  the  doctrine  facrifices,  in  a  correfpond- 
ent  degree,  the  intrinfic  value  of  our  country.  4.  After  a  public 
denial  of  the  doctrine,  to  admit  it,  in  the  midlt  of  the  prefent 
war,  by  a  formal  treaty,  would  have  but  too  much  of  the  ef- 
fect, as  well  as  the  appearance,  of  voluntarily  concurring  in  the 
fcheme  of  diftrefTing  a  nation,  whofe  friendly  relations  to  the 
United  States,  as  well  as  the  ftruggles  for  freedom  in  which  it 
is  engaged,  give  a  title  to  every  good  olTice  which  is  permitted 
by  a  juft  regard  to  our  own  intereft,  and  not  ftrictly  forbidden 
by  the  duties  of  neutrality.  5.  It  is  no  plea  for  the  meafure, 
to  hold  it  up  as  an  alternative  to  the  difgrace  of  being  involun- 
tarily treated  in  the  fame  manner,  without  a  faculty  to  redrefs 
ourfelves.  The  difgrace  of  being  plundered  with  impunity,  a- 
gainft  our  confent,  being,  under  no  circumftances,  fo  great  as 
the  difgrace  of  confenting  to  be  plundered  with  impunity.  By 
annexing  to  the  implements  of  war,  enumerated  as  contraband, 
the  articles  of  fhip  timber,  tar  or  rofin,  copper  in  fheets,  fails, 
hemp,  and  cordage,  our  neutral  rights  and  national  interefts 
arc  (till  further  narrowed.  Thefe  articles  were  excluded  from 
the  contraband  lift,  by  the  United  States,  when  they  were 
themfelves  in  a  ftate  of  war.  (See  ordinance  relating  to  cap- 
tures on  fourth  of  December,  1781.)  Their  other  treaties  ex- 
prefsly  declare  them  not  to  be  contraband. 

Britifli  treaties  have  done  the  fame ;  nor,  as  is  believed,  do 
the  treaties  of  any  nation  in  Europe,  producing  thefe  articles 
for  exportation,  allow  them  to  be  fubjects  of  confifcation.  The 
Itipulation  was  the  lefs  to  be  admitted,  as  the  reciprocity  af- 
fumed  by  it,  is  a  mere  cover  for  the  violation  of  that  princi- 
ple— molt  of  the  articles  in  queflion,  being  among  the  exports 
of  the  United  States,  whilft  all  of  them  are  among  the  imports 
of  Great  Britain. 

By  exprefsly  ftipulating  with  Great  Britain,  againft  the  free- 
dom of  enemy's  property  in  neutral  bottoms,  the  progrefs  to- 
wards a  complete  and  formal  eitabhihmcnt  of  a  principle  in  the 
law  of  nations,  fo  favorable  to  the  general  intereft  and  fecurity 
of  commerce,  receives  all  the  check  the  United  States  could 
give  to  it.  Reafon  and  experience  have  long  taught  the  pro- 
priety of  confidering  free  Ihips  as  giving  freedom  to  their  car- 


8  Virginia  Memokial   and  Petition. 

goes.  The  fevcral  great  maritime  nations  of  Europe,  have  not 
only  eftablifhed,  at  different  times,  by  their  treaties  with  each 
other,  but,  on  a  folemn  occafion,  jointly  declared  it  to  be  the 
law  of  nations,  by  a  fpeciric  compact,  of  which  the  United 
States  entered  their  entire  approbation  (fee  their  adl  of  the  cth 
of  October,  1780).  Great  Britain  alone  diffented.  But  flie  her- 
felf,  in  a  variety  of  prior  treaties,  and  in  a  treaty  with  France, 
fince,  has  acceded  to  the  principle.  Under  theft  circumitnnces, 
the  United  States,  of  all  nations,  ought  to  be  the  lalt  to  com- 
bine in  a  retrograde  effort  on  this  fubject,  as  being,  more  than 
any  other,  interested  in  extending  and  ellablifhing  the  commer- 
cial rights  of  neutral  nations. — Their  fituation  particularly  fits 
them  to  be  carriers  for  the  great  nations  of  Europe,  during 
their  wars  ;  and  both  their  fituation,  and  the  genius  of  their 
government  and  people,  promife  them  a  greater  (hare  of  peace 
and  neutrality,  than  can  be  expected  by  any  other  nation — The 
relation  of  the  United  States  by  a  treaty  on  this  point,  to  the 
enemies  of  Great  Britain,  was  another  reafon  for  avoiding  this 
ftipulation.  Whilll  Britifh  goods,  in  American  veffels,  are 
protected  againft  French  and  Dutch  captures,  it  was  enough 
to  leave  French  and  Dutch  goods  in  American  veffels,  to  the 
ordinary  courfe  of  judicial  determination,  without  a  voluntary, 
a  pofitive,  and  invidious  provifion  for  condemning  them.  It 
has  not  been  overlooked,  that  a  claufe  in  the  treaty  propofes  to 
renew,  at  fome  future  period,  the  difcuffion  of  the  principle 
now  fettled  ;  but  the  queftion  is  then  to  be,  not  only  in  what, 
but  'whether  in  any  cafes,  neutral  veffels  fhall  protect,  enemies' 
property  ;  and  it  is  to  be  difcuffed  at  the  fame  time,  not  whe- 
ther in  any,  but  in  what  oqfes,  provisions,  and  other  articles  not 
bound  to  inverted  places,  may  be  treated  as  cxmtraban3.  So 
that  when  the  principle  is  in  favor  of  the  United  States,  the 
principle  itfelf  is  to  be  the  fubjecl  of  difcuffion  ;  when  the  prin- 
ciple is  in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  the  application  of  it  only,  is 
to  be  the  fubject  of  difcuffion. 

III.  Whenever  the  law  of  nations  has  been  a  topic  for  con- 
fideration,  the  refult  of  the  treaty  accommodates  Great  Britain 
in  relation  to  one,  or  both  of  the  republics  et  war  with  her, 
as  well  as  in  the  abandonment  of  the  rights  and  interefts  of 
the  Uuiied  States. 

Thus  American  veffels  bound  to  Great  Britain,  are  protect- 
ed by  fea  papers,  again!!  French  and  Dutch  fcarches  ;  but 
when  bound  to  France  or  Holland,  are'  left  expofed  to  Britifh 
fearches,    without  regard  to  fuch  papers. 

American  provilions  in  American  veffels,  bound  to  the  ene- 
rgies of  Great  Britain,  arc  left,  by  treaty,   to  the  feizure  and 


Virginia  Memorial   and  Petition.  9 

ufe  of  Great  Britain  ;  but  provifions,  whether  American  or 
not,  in  American  vefTels,  cannot  be  touched  by  the  enemies  of 
Great  Britain. 

Britifh  property,  in  American  vefTels,  is  not  fubject  to  French 
or  Dutch  confifcation — French  or  Dutch  property  in  American 
vefTels,  is  fubjec"ted  to  Britifh  confifcation.  Articles  of  (hip 
building,  bound  to  the  enemies  of  Great  Britain  for  the  equip- 
ment of  vefTels  of  trade  only,  are  contraband — bound  to  Great 
Britain  for  the  equipment  of  vefTels  of  war,  are  not  contra- 
band. 

American  citizens  entering  as  volunteers  in  the  fervice  of 
France  or  Holland,  are  punilhable  :  but  American  volunteers 
joining  the  arms  of  Great  Britain  againfl:  France  or  Holland, 
are  not  punifhable. 

Britifh  (hips  of  war,  and  privateers  with  their  prizes,  made 
on  citizens  of  Holland,  may  freely  enter  and  depart  the  ports 
of  the  United  States;  but  Dutch  {hips  of  war,  and  privateers 
with  their  prizes,  made  on  fubjects  of  Great  Britain,  are  to 
receive  no  fhelter  or  refuge  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 
—  This  advantage  in  war  is  given  to  Great  Britain,  not  by  a 
treaty  prior  to  an  existing  war,  but  by  a  treaty  made  in  the 
midfl  of  war,  and  exprefsly  flipulating  againfl  a  like  article  of 
treaty,  with  the  other  party,  for  equalizing  the  advantage. 

The  article  prohibiting  confifcations  and  fequefhations,  is 
unequal  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  ;  Ameri- 
can citizens  have  little,  if  any,  interefl  in  private  or  bank 
(lock,  or  private  debts,  within  Great  Britain.  So,  where  much 
would  be  in  the  power  of  the  United  States,  and  little  in  the 
power  of  Great  Britain,  the  power  is  interdicted  :  Where 
more  is  in  the  power  of  Great  Britain  than  of  the  United  States, 
the  power  is  unconfined.  Another  remark  is  applicable — When 
the  modern  ufage  of  nations  is  in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  the 
modern  ufage  is  the  rule  of  the  treaty ;  but  when  the  modern 
ufage  is  in  favor  of'  the  United  States,  the  modern  ufage  is  re- 
jected, as  a  rule  for  the  treaty. 

IV.  The  footing  on  which  the  treaty  places  the  fubject  of 
commerce,  is  liable  to  infuperable  objections.  1.  The  nature 
of  our  exports  and  imports,  compared  with  tndfe  of  other 
countries,  and  particularly  of  Great  Britain,  has  been  thought, 
by  the  lcgiflature  of  the  United  States,  to  juftify  certain  dif- 
ferences, in  the  tonnage  and  other  duties,  in  favor  of  Ameri- 
can bottoms  ;  and  the  advantage  pofTefTed  by  Great  Britain,  in 
her  fuperior  capital,  was  thought,  at  the  fame  time,  to  require 
fuch  countervailing  encouragements.  Experience  has  lhown 
the"  folidity  of  both  thefe  considerations.    The  American  na- 


lo  Virginia  Memorial  and  Petition. 

i 

vigation  has,  in  a  good  degree,  been  protected,  again  ft  the  ad- 
vantage on  the  fide  of  Britifh  capital,  and  has  increafed  in 
proportion  •,  whilit  the  nature  of  our  exports,  being  generally 
neceflaries,  or  raw  materials,  and  our  imports  confuting  moftly 
of  Britifh  manufactures,  has  reftrained  the  difpofition  of  Great 
Britain  to  counteract  the  protecting  duties  afforded  to  our  na- 
vigation. If  the  treaty  is  carried  into  effect,  this  protection  is 
relinquifhed,  and  congrefs  are  prohibited  from  fubltituting  any 
other.  Then  the  Britifh  capital,  having  no  longer  the  prefent 
inducement  to  make  ufe  of  American  bottoms,  may  be  ex- 
pected, in  whatever  hands  operating,  to  give  the  preference  to 
Britifh  bottoms. 

2*  The  provifions  of  the  treaty,  which  relate  to  the  Weft 
Indies,  where  the  nature  of  our  exports  and  imports  gives  a 
commanding  energy  to  our  juft  pretenfions,  inftead  of  allevi- 
ating the  general  evil,  are  a  detail  of  particular  humiliations 
and  facrifices.  Nor  will  a  remedy  by  any  means  be  found,  in  a 
revifion  of  that  part  alone  of  the  treaty. 

If  Great  Britain  fhould  accede  to  the  propofition  of  the  fe- 
nate,  and  the  treaty  be  finally  eftablifhed,  without  that  part  of 
it,  but  in  all  its  other  parts  :  She  will,  in  that  event,  be  able 
to  exclude  American  bottoms  altogether  from  the  channel  of 
intercourfe,  and  to  regulate  the  whole  trade  with  the  Weft 
Indies,  in  the  manner  heretofore  complained  of,  whilit  the 
United  States  will  be  completely  difpoffeffed  of  the  right  and 
the  means  of  counteracting  monopoly,  unlefs  they  fubmit  to 
an  univerfal  infraction  of  their  trade,  not  excepting  with  nations 
whofe  regulations  may  be  reciprocal  and  fatisfactory. 

3.  The  treaty,  not  content  with  thefe  injuries  to  the  United 
States,  in  their' commerce  with  Great  Britain,  provides,  in  the 
15th  article,  agajnft  the  improvement  or  prefervation  of  their 
commerce  with  other  nations,  by  any  beneficial  treaties  that 
may  be  attainable. — The  general  rule  of  the  United  States,  in 
their  treaties,  founded  on  the  example  of  other  nations,  has 
been,  that  where  a  nation  is  to  have  the  privileges  of  the  mod 
favored  nations,  it  (hall  be  admitted  gratuitoufly  to  fuch  privi- 
leges only  as  may  be  gratuitoufly  granted,  but  (hall  pay,  for 
privileges  not  gratuitouily  granted,  the  compenfation  paid  by 
others  ;  this  prudent  and  equitable  qualification  of  the  footing 
of  the  moft  favored  nation,  was  particularly  requifite  in  a 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  whofe  commercial  fyftem,  in  rela- 
tion to  other  countries,  being  matured  and  fettled,  is  not  likely 
to  be  varied  by  grants  of  new  privileges  that  might  refult  to 
the  United  States.  It  was  peculiarly  requifite,  at  the  prefent 
juncture,  alfo,  when  an  advantageous  revifion  of  the  treaty 


Virginia  Memorial  and  Petition.  if 

with  France  is  faid  to  be  favored  by  that  republic ;  when  a  trea- 
ty with  Spain  is  actually  in  negociation  ;  and  when  treaties 
with  other  nations,  whofe  commerce  is  important  to  the  United 
States,  cannot  be  out  of  contemplation. 

The  propofed  treaty,  neverthelefs,  puts  Great  Britain,  in  all 
refpects,  gratuitoufly,  on  the  footing  of  the  nations  mod  fa- 
vored, even  as  to  the  future  privileges,  for  which  the  molt 
valuable  confidcrations  may  be  given  ;  fo  that  it  is  not  only  out 
of  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  grant  any  peculiar  privileges 
to  any  other  nation,  as  an  equivalent  for  peculiar  advantages 
in  commerce  or  navigation,  granted  to  the  United  States  ;  but 
every  nation,  defiring  to  treat  on  this  fubject  with  the  United 
States,  is  reduced  to  the  alternative,  either  of  declining  the 
treaty  altogether,  or  of  including  Great  Britain,  gratuitoufly, 
in  all  the  privileges  it  purchafes  lor  itfelf.  An  article  of  this 
import  is  the  greateft  obftruction,  next  to  an  abfolute  prohi- 
bition, that  could  have  been  thrown  in  the  way  of  other  trea- 
ties ;  and  that  it  was  infidioufly  meant  by  Great  Britain  to  be 
fuch,  is  rendered  the  lefs  doubtful,  by  the  kindred  features  of 
the  treaty. 

4.  It  can  be  no  apology  for  the  commercial  difadvantages, 
that  better  terms  could  not  be  obtained.  If  proper  terms  could 
not  be  obtained^  at  that  time,  commercial  articles,  which  were  n$ 
•wife  ejfetitially  cotmetled  with  the  objetls  of  the  embaffy,  ought  t$ 
have  waited  for  a  more  favorable  feafon.  Nor  is  a  better  apolo- 
gy to  be  drawn  from  our  other  treaties.  Thefe  not  only  avoid 
many  of  the  facrifices  in  the  new  treaty ;  but  the  chief  of 
them  were  the  guarantees  or  the  auxiliaries  of  our  indepen- 
dence ;  and,  in  that  view,  would  have  been  an  equivalent  for 
greater  commercial  conceffions  than  were  infifted  on. 

V.  The  prefident  and  lenate,  by  ratifying  this  treaty,  ufurp 
the  power  of  regulating  commerce,  of  making  rules  with  re-  . 
fpeci  to  aliens,  of  eitablifhing  tribunals  of  juftice,  and  of  de-  1 
fining  piracy.  A  formal  demonftration  of  every  part  of  this 
complex  propofition  is  not  requifite.  We  will  prove,  that  this 
treaty  is  dangerous  to  liberty,  and  that  the  conftituted  autho- 
rities, who  have  given  it  their  fanclion,  have  flagrantly  vio- 
lated their  duty,  by  an  appeal  to  the  conftitution  itfelf,  to  that 
explicit  inftrument,  which  we  formed  as  the  unerring  guide 
of  our  reprefentatives,  but  which  fome  of   them  have  dared 

to  violate. 

VI.  A  treaty,  thus  incompatible  with  our  conftitution,  thus 
unequal  in  its  conditions,  thus  derogating  from  our  national 
rights,  thus  infidious  in  fome  of  its  objecls,  and  thus  alarm- 
ing in  all  its  operations,  is  not  only  unworthy  of  the  voluntary 


i a  Tolly— No.  II. 

acceptance  of  an  independent   and  happy  people,    but  is  art 
abject  facrifice,  which  ought  to  have  been  rejected  with  difdain, 
in  the  mod  humiliating  and  advcrfe  circumftances.    It  is   fin- 
cerely  believed,  that  fuch  a  treaty  would  not  have  been  jiftened 
to  at   any  former  period,  even   when    Great  Britain  was  mod 
powerful,  and  the  United  States  moft  feeble.    To  pretend,  that, 
however  objectionable  the  inflrument    may  be,   it  ought  to   be   confi- 
dered  as  the  only  efcape  from  a  hojlile  refenlmer.t  of  Great  Britain, 
•which  would  evidently  be  as  impolitic,  as  it  would  be  unjujl  on  her 
part,    IS    AN    ARTIFICE    TOO    CONTEMPTI- 
BLE  TO    ANSWER    ITS  PURPOSE.     It  will  not 
eafily    be    fuppofed,    that  a   refufal  to   part  with    our  rights, 
without  equivalents,  will  be  made  the  pretext  of  war   on  us  ; 
much  lefs  that  fuch  a  pretext  will  be  founded  on  our  refufal, 
to  mingle  a  facrifice  of  our  commerce  and  navigation,  with  an 
adjuftment  of  political   differences.    Neither  is  there  any  evi- 
dence in  hiftory,  or  in  human  nature,  that  nations   are  to  be 
bribed   out   of  the  fpirit  of  encroachment  and  aggreffion,  by  ' 
humiliations,   which  nourifh   their   pride,  or  by  unreafonable 
conceffions,  which  extend  their  refources  and  their  power.  To 
do  juitice   to   all   nations — to   obtain   it  from   them  by  every 
peaceable  effort,  in  preference  to  war — and  to  confide  in  this 
policy,  for   avoiding   that  extremity,  or   for  meeting   it   with 
firmnefs,  under  the  bleffing  of  heaven,  when  it  may  be  forced 
upon  us,  is  the  only  courfe  of  which   the  United  States  can 
never  have  reafon  to  repent. 

The  petitioners,  relying  on  the  wifdom  and  patriotifm  of 
the  general  affembly,  pray  that  the  objections  to  the  treaty, 
comprifed  in  thefe  obfervations,  mr.y  be  taken  into  their  ieri- 
ous  confideration  ;  and  that  fuch  meafures  towards  a  remedy 
may  be  purfued,  as  may  be  judged  moft  conformable  to  the 
nature  of  the  cafe,  and  moft  conliftent  with  couftitutional 
principles. 

Sophiftry  Detected 

[CONTINUED  FROM  VOL.   2.  PAGE  201.] 

No.  II. 

GA  M  I  L  L  U.  S,    already  proverbial    for   prolixity  and 
verbofity,   has    gone    beyond   his    ufual    tedioufnefs  on 
the  fubject  of  fequeflration  and  confifcarion.    He  has  devoted 


TULLY— No.    II.  ij 

io  the  iftveftigation   no  left;  than  four  or  five    entire  num- 
bers^ of  length  fufficienl  t    .whauft  the  patience  of  evf.n  a  pen- 
;fain.    Eut  by  thir,  elaborate  difcuflion,  lie  has  not 
gained  a  profelyte. 

When  he  can  feizc  z  finglc  fentiment,  in  any  writer  on  the 
laws  of  nations,  that  favors  this  part  of  the  treaty,  he  lays  as 
rhuch  Hrefs  upon  his  opinions  as  the  priefts  of  Apollo  ever 
)(  Iphian  oracles.  But  every  opinion  eppofed  to  his, 
tioned — every  fact,  however  well  authenticated, 
he  endeavours  to  invalidate  or  explain  away. — Artful  and  fo- 
ririift  as  he1  L>,  he  hasj  by  one  finglc  fentence,  overturned  the 
fabric  h  oded  fa  much  time  to  ered.  He  h  is  conceded 

enough  to  fatisfy  every  rational  mar  <f  the  fallacy  of  his  ar- 
guments. He  ha:- :  dged,  that  there  ate  cafes,  in  which 
not  only  the  fequeftration,  but  the  confifcation.  of  property, 
rr.ay  be  jutlifial-'e. 

But  led  it  lhould  be  pretended,  that  a  drained  or  unwar- 
ranted conftruction  is  put  on  his  words,  I  fliall  give  the  fen- 
tence at  length,  thai  the  reader  may  judge  for  himfelf :  "  It 
would  have  been  an  incitimable  gem  in  our  political  conftitutiotK 
had  it  contained  apofitive  ttipulation  againft  fuch  a  practice  (viz. 
that  of  fequeftration  and.  confifcation)  except,  perhaps,  BY 
WAY  OF  REPRISAL  FOR  THE  IDENTICAL  INJL'^ 
RY,  ON  THE  PART  OF  ANOTHER  NATION," 
It  is  plainly  and  juftly  deducible  from  this  fentence  : 
lit.  That  when  any  nation  fequeftera  the  property  of  ano- 
ther nation,  the  latter  has  a  jult  right,  »«  by  way  of  reprija!> 
for  the  identical  injury"  to  fequefter  the  property  of  the  fub- 
je£ts  of  the  aggreflbr. 

2d.  That  when  any  nation  confifcates  the  property  of  the 
fwbjecls  of  another  nation,  that  nation  has  a  right,  "  by  way 
of  reprifal,"  to  fequefter  or  confifcate  the  property  of  the  fub- 
jedls  or  citizens  of  the  offending  nation.  Thus,  then,  there 
are  two  cafes  in  which  fequeftration,  and  one  in  which  confif- 
cacion,  io  juftifiable.  This  might  be  lufficient  to  evince  the 
fallacy  of"  CamiPus.  But  from  thefe  politions  flow  more  fatis- 
factory  confequences. 

If  a  nation  differs  a<?  flagrant,  or  a  more  flagrant  injury, 
than  the  fequeftration  or  confifcation  of  the  property  of  her 
citizens,  fhe  has,  a  fortiori,  a  right,  "  by  -way  of  reprifal"  al- 
though not  for  exactly  "  the  identical  injury"  to  fequefter  01 
confifcate  the  property  of  the  Citizen's  or  fubjeCts  of  the  of- 
fei  ding 

The  qurftioh  19. then  limply  this,  are  there  any  violations  of 
I      laws  oi   nation-,  wjth  refpecl  to  the  rights  of  property,  as 
Vol    III.  C 


14-  Tilly— No.  II. 

great  or  greater  than  the  fequeftration  or  confiscation  of  pro- 
perty ?  That  there  are,  England  has  debarred  even  Camillas 
of  the  power  of  denying.  Let  us  fuppofe,  for  fake  of  argu-r 
ment  (and  this  will  fur  fly  be  allowed  a  fuppofable  cafe  J  that  a 
piratical  nation,  before  ifiuing  any  declaration  of  war,  clan- 
deftinely  grants  letters  of  marque  and  reprifal  to  all  her  vefltls, 
and  this  conducted  in  fuch  an  artful  manner  as  to  reacli  all 
quarters  of  the  globe  about  the  fame  period,  and  thus  render 
the  commerce  of  an  unfufpecling  rival  an  inevitable  prey  to  a 
band  of  lawlefs  robbers.  Can  the  Federalift,  can  Curtius,  can 
Camillus,  deny  that  this  is  a  more  heinous  violation  of  the 
law  of  nations,  and  a  more  deep  and  lading  injury,  than  the 
fequeftration  or  even  confifeation  of  an  equal  value  of  pro- 
perty within  the  territory  cf  the  piratical  nation  ? — Surely,  if 
they  have  the  audacity  to  deny  it,  they  will  find  few  of  the  en- 
lightened citizens  of  America  to  coincide  in  opinion  with  them. 

Suppofe,  further,  that  the  aggrieved  nation  had,  in  its  own 
territoiy,  property  of  the  fubjedts  of  the  other  nation,  of 
equal  value  with  that  which  had  been  thus  piratically  plunder- 
ed, would  it  not  be  a  right,  nay  a  duty,  to  feize  it,  for  the 
purpofe  of  making  restitution  to  the  fufferers  ?  Unqueftionably 
it  would. 

Again,  let  us  fuppofe  (and  this,  likewife,  will  be  allow- 
ed a  very  fuppofable  cafe)  the  fame,  or  any  other  piratical 
nation,  to  have  iiTued  orders,  on  the  6th  cf  November ,  1793,  or 
on  any  other  day  in  any  other  year,  to  her  cruifers,  to  feize 
the  vefllls  of  any  neutral,  and  carry  them  into  her  ports  "  for 
legal  adjudication"  that  the  "  Algerine"  judges  in  her  admiralty 
courts  had  conftrued  "  legal  adjudication"  to  mean  "  condem- 
nation ;"  and  that  the  neutral  nation,  without  any  real  or  pre- 
tended violation  of  the  rights  of  neutrality,  mould  be  bafe- 
ly  and  perfidioufly  plundered  of  her  property,  to  an  incalcu- 
lable amount. 

Is  not  this  a  more  heinous  violation  of  the  laws  of  nations, 
than  would  have  been  the  fequeftration  of  property  in  the  coun- 
try of  the  aggrelfor  ?  Does  the  difference  of  place,  in  which  the 
robbery  is  perpetrated,  conftitute  any  eiVential  difference  in  the 
turpitude,  the  villainy  of  the  deed  ?  And  if  it  be  lawful,  in 
the  cafe  of  the  leffer  crime,  to  retaliate  by  fequeftration  or  con- 
fifeation, can  the  fuperior  enormity  of  the  other  annul  the  right 
of  the  fufferer  ? 

If  a  robber  or  murderer  meets  me  on  the  highway,  and 
(tabs  me,  am  I  to  defend  or  avenge  myfelf  in  no  other  way, 
than  in  the  "  identical"  one,  in  which  he  was  guilty  ?  Am  I 
»ot  to  attempt  refinance,  becaufe  I  have  no  weapons  of  de- 


Camillus — No.  XXI.  i£ 

fence  but  piftols,  and  have  been  attacked  with  a  fword  ? 
<«  Away  with  thefe  abfurd  and  incongruous  fophifms !  Blufh, 
"  apoftle  of  temerity,  of  meannefs,  and  of  deception  !  Why 
tf  will  you  perfevere  in  accumulating  ridicule  and  contempt; 
"  upon  your  own  head  ?"  * 

The  laws  and  modern  practice  of  nations  profcribe  fequef- 
tration  and  confifcation  of  the  property  of  the  citizens  or 
fubjecls  of  other  nations  within  our  territory!  So  do  they 
equally  profcribe  robbery  on  the  high  feas,  in  time  of  peace. 
And  the  government  that  commences  hollilities,  by  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  nations,  in  either  mode,  has  no  right  to  com- 
plain for  having  juftke  executed,  and  punifhment  inflicted  on 
her,  by  the  fame  or  any  other  more  convenient  violation  of  the 
law  of  nations. 

By  the  modern  laws  of  war,  prifoners  are  entitled  to  good 
treatment,  unlefs  they  forfeit  their  right,  by  mifconduct  or 
crime. — But  fuppofc  a  nation  to  refort  to  flow  but  certain  me- 
thods of  exterminating  its  prifoners,  fuch,  for  inftance,  as  in- 
fected, corrupted,  or  even  poifoned  victuals — or  the  peftilential 
and  deftroying  vapours  of  prifon-fhips  (ANOTHER  VERY 
SUPrOSABLE  CASE)— is  the  fufiering  nation  obliged  to 
obferve  the  rigid  rules  of  the  laws  of  war  ?  Is  it,  for  fear  of 
being  diihonored,  to  allow  its  beft  citizens  to  fall  vidims  to 
the  infatiable  cruelty  of  a  barbarous  enemy  ?  Surely  not.  And 
if  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  war  is  to  be  punifhed  by  a  fimi- 
lar  or  other  violation,  it  is  equally  certain,  that  a  violation  of 
the  laws  of  nations  demands  vengeance,  in  a  fimilar  manner. 

TULL  Y. 
f_TO   be  continued.] 

Defence  of  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty, 

[CONTINUED    FROM  VOL.  2.  PAGR   I99.] 

No.  XXT. 

SINCE  the  clofing  of  my  laft  number,  I  have  accidentally 
turned  to  a  pan* age  of  Vattelx  which  is  fo  pertinent  to  the 
immediate  fubject  of  that  paper,  that  I  cannot  refrain  fron  intcr- 

*  See  Camillus  No.  18, 


to  Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXI. 

rupting  the  progrefs  of  the  difcvflion,  fo  q;'ote  it ;  it  is  in  thefc 
words  (b.  3-ch.  4.fe6fc,63.)"'J,hefovej,eign,  daring  war,  can 
neither  detain  thofe  fubjeas  oi~  the  encrn  ,*re  within  his 

dominions  at  the  time    of    the    dc  I  nor    their  effccls. 

They  came  into  his  country  on  the  p  th.     By  permit' 

:/.   •    to  enter  his  territories,  and  continue  there,  he  tacitly  prom 
th   ;  .      <7y,  and fecurity  for  their  return."  This  pafHige  com  uns, 
ex;  lici         the  principle  which   ij>  the  genera!  bufi&  of  my  ar- 
gUi  ■/,  that  the  permifnon  to  a  foreigner   to   . 

with  'o,  and  acquire  others  within,  our  country, 

in  time  of  pi  ace,   virtually  pledges  the  public  faith  for  & 
curity  of  his  perfon  and  property,  in  the  event  of 
can  this  be  reconciJed  -with  the  natural  right  (con*: 
by  the  cultomary  law  of  nat'ons)  which  this  .,  to 

confifcate  the  debts  due  by  the  fubjeo"       f  a  ifr.  ene- 

mies I  1  afk  once  more,  can  there  be  a  nntural  right  to  do  that 
which  includes  a  violation  of  faith  ? 

It  |s  plain,  to  a  demonftraMrn,  that  the  rule  laid   do\  i 

this  pafi'age,  which  js  fo  juft  and  perfjpicui  us  as  to  fpeak 
viclion  to  the  heart  and  undcrllanding,  unites  he  rjatura) 
the  cuftomary  law  of  nations,  in  a  cone  pre- 

tenfion    to    confifcate    or    fequcfter    the    ,  rt'y    of 

our    enemy,    found    in   our    country  at   the  3  ut  of 

3  war. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  examine  the  policy  a:. 
fu  ;"i  a  pretention. 

In  this  inveftigation,  I  (hall  aflume,  as  a  bafis  of  ai 
the  following  po  fit  ion,  That  it  is  advantageous  to  nation 
commerce  with  each  other. 

Commerce,  it   is  manifeft,  like  any  other  objec": 
prize  or  induflry,  will  profper  in  proportion  as  it  is  fee  ore,. 
fecurity,  confequently,  promoting  its  profperity,  extends  its  ad- 
vantages.   Security  is  indeed  eflential  to  its  having  a  due  and 
regular  courfe. 

The  pretenfion  of  a  right  to  confifcate  or  fequefter  the  ef- 
fects of  foreign  merchants,  in  the  cafe  in  queftion,  is,  in  its 
principle,  fatal  to  that  neceffary  fecurity.  Its  free  exercijfe 
would  deftroy  external  commerce;  or,  which  is  nearly  the 
fame  thing,  reduce  it  within  the  contracted  limits  of  a  game 
of  hazard,  where  the  chance  of  large  profits,  accompanied 
with  the  great  rifles,  would  tempt  alone  the  adventurous  and 
the  defperate.  Thofe  enterprifes,  which,  from  circuitous  or 
long  voyages,  flownefs  of  fales,  incident  to  the  nature  of  cer- 
tain commodities,  the  neceffity  of  credit,  or  from  other  caufes, 
demand  confiderable  time  for  their  completion,  mult  be  re- 


Camitlus — No.  XXI.  17 

irrcH      C        ,  indeed,  mud  be  banilhed  from  all 

,i\  commerce;    an  engine,    the  imp        ice    jf 
i    vigorous    and   furcefsful    profecution,  be 

doubtc     b)  none,  who  wii!  be  guided  by  experience  or  oofer- 
vation. 

h  cannpt  need  amplification,  to  elucidate  the  truth  of  thefe 
s.    The  (terms  6f  war  occur  fo  fuddenly  and   fo  often, 
bio  the  fuppofition,  that  the  merchants  oi  one  coun- 
their  property,  to  any  extent,  or  for  any  dura- 
ti  1    'her  country,  which  was  in  the  p'raQrjee  of  confif- 

cati  [ueftering  the  eiTtcts  of  its  enemies,  found  within 

its  terr'tories,  at  the  ccmnencement  of  a  war.     That  practice, 
Si  -/•■-.   would  necefpirily  parable  and   wither  the  commerce 
of  the  country  in  which  it  obtained.     Accordingly,  nations  at- 
tentive t 6  the  cultivation  <-f  commerce,  which   formerly   were 
betrayed,  by  temporary  confederations,  into  particular  inftances 
of  that  atrocious  practice    have  been  led,  by  the  experience 
of  '..'s  mifchiefs,  to  abftain  from    it  in  later  times.    They   faw 
that   to  have  periifted  in  it  would  have  been  to  abandon  com- 
petition on  equal  terms,  in  tlve  lucrative  and  beneficial  field  of 
fierce. 
It  is  no  anfwer  to  this,  to  fay  that  the  exercife  of  the  right 
might  be   ordinarily  fufpendecl,  though  the  right   itfelf  might 
be  maintained,  for  extraordinary  and  great  emergencies. 

In  the  firft  place,  as  the  ordinary  forbearance  of  its  exer- 
cife would  be  taken  by  foreigners  for  evidence  of  an  intention 
never  to  exercife  it,  by  which  they  would  be  enticed  into  large 
depofiies,  that  would  not  otherwife  have  taken  place;  a  depart- 
ure from  the  general  courfe  would  always  involve  an  aft  of  trea- 
chery and  cruelty. 

In  the  fecond  place,  the  pojfibility  of  the  occafional  exercife 
of  fuch  a  right,  if  conceived  to  exitt,  would  be,  at  leaft,  a  flow 
poifon,  conducing  to  a  fickly  habit  of  commerce  ;  and,  in  a 
fcries  of  time,  would  be  productive  of  much  more  evil  than 
could  be  counterbalanced  by  any  good  which  it  might  be  pofli- 
ble  to  obtain  in  the  contemplated  emergency,  by  the  ufe  of  the 
expedient. 

Let  experience  decide — Examples  of  confiscation  and  fequcf- 
I  tration  have  been  given — "When  did  the  dread  of  them  prevent 
a  war  ?  when  did  it  cripple  an  enemy,  fo  as  to  difable  him 
from  exertion,  or  force  him  into  a  fubmiflion  to  the  views  of 
his  adverfary  ?  When  did  it  even  fenlibly  confpire  to  either  of 
thefe  ends  ?  If  it  has  ever  had  any  fuch  effect,  the  evidence  of 
it  has  not  come  within  my  knowledge. 


I  8  Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXI. 

It  is  true,  that  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States, 
the  expectation  of  fuch  effects  is  better  warranted  than  per- 
haps in  any  other  cafes  that  have  exifted  ;  becaufe  we  common- 
ly owe  a  larger  debt  to  that  country,  than  is  ufual  between  na- 
tions, and  there  is  a  relative  (late  of  things,  which  tends  to  a 
continuation  of  this  fituation. 

But  how  has  the  matter  operated  hitherto  ?  In  the  late  war 
between  the  two  countries,  certain  ltates  confifcated  the  debts 
due  from  their  citizens  to  Britifh  creditors,  and  thefe  creditors 
actually  fuffered  great  lodes.  The  Britifh  cabinet  muft  have 
known,  that  it  was  pcllible  the  fame  thing  might  happen  in 
another  war,  and  on  a  more  general  fcale  ;  yet  the  appearances 
were  extremely  ftrong,  at  a  particular  juncture,  that  it  was 
their  plan,  either  from  ill-will,  from  the  belief  that  popular 
opinion  would  ultimately  drag  our  government  into  the  war, 
from  the  union  of  thefe  two,  or  from  other  caufes,  to  force 
us  into  hoftiiities  with  them.  Hence  it  appears,  that  the  appre- 
henfion  of  acts  of  confifcation,  or  fequeftration,  was  not 
fufficient  to  deter  from  hoftile  views,  or  to  infure  pacific  di'f- 
pofitions. 

It  may  be  pretended,  that  the  menace  of  this  meafure,  had 
a  retraining  influence  on  the  fubfequent  conduct  of  Great 
Britain.  But  if  we  afcribe  nothing  to  the  meafures  which 
our  government  actually  purfued,  under  the  preflure  of  the 
provocations  received,  we  at  leafl  find,  in  the  courfe  of  Eu- 
ropean events,  a  better  folution  of  a  change  of  policy  in  the 
cabinet  of  Great  Britain,  than  from  the  dread  of  a  legiflative  pi- 
racy on  the  debts  due  to  their  merchants. 

The  truth  unfortunately  is,  that  the  paflions  of  men  ftifle 
calculation  j  that  nations  the  molt  attentive  to  pecuniary  confi- 
derations,  eafily  furrender  them  to  ambition,  to  jealoufy,  to 
anger,  or  to  revenge. 

For  the  fame  reafon,  the  actual  experiment  of  an  exercife 
of  the  pretended  right,  by  way  of  reprifal  for  an  injury  com- 
plained of,  would  commonly  be  as  inefficacious,  as  the  menace 
of  it,  to  arreft  general  hoftiiities. — Pride  is  roufed  ;  refent- 
ment  kindled ;  and  where  there  is  even  no  previous  dilpofition 
to  thofe  hoftiiities,  the  probability  is,  that  they  follow.  Na- 
tions, like  individuals,  ill  brook  the  idea  of  receding  from 
their  pretenfions  under  the  rod,  or  of  admitting  the  juftice  of 
an  act  of  retaliation  or  reprifal,  by  fubmitting  to  it.  Thus  we 
learn,  from  the  king  of  Pruffia  himfelf,  that  the  fequeftration 
of  the  Silefia  debt,  inftead  of  procuring  the  reftoration  for 
which  it  was  defigned,  was  on  the  point  of  occafioning  an 
open  rupture  between  him  and  Great  Britain,  when  the  fuper- 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXI.  19 

vention  of  a  quarrel  with  France  diverted  the  ftorm,  by  render- 
ing him  neceflary  as  an  ally. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  imagined,  that  the  practice  of  confifcation 
or  fequeltration  would  be  more  efficacious  to  wound  and  dif- 
able  Great  Britain,  in  cafe  of  a  war,  than  to  prevent  it.  But 
this  alfo  is  a  vain  chimera  !  A  nation,  that  can,  at  pleafure, 
raife  by  loan  twenty  millions  fterling,  would  be  in  little  dan- 
ger of  being  difconcerted  or  enfeebled  in  her  military  enter- 
prizes,  by  the  taking  r.way  or  arrefting  of  three  or  four  mil- 
lions due  to  her  mer/hants.  Did  it  produce  diltrefs  and  dis- 
order among  thofe  whom  it  affected  and  their  connexions  ?  If 
that  diforder  was  fufiicient  to  threaten  a  general  derangement 
of  mercantile  credit,  and,  with  it,  of  the  public  finances,  the 
pending  war  affords  an  example,  that  the  public  purfe  or  cre- 
dit could  be  brought  Fuccefsfully  into  action  for  the  fupport 
of  the  fuilerers.  Three  or  four  millions  of  exchequer  bills  ap- 
plied in  loans,  would  be  likely  to  furficc,  to  prevent  the  partial 
evil  from  growing  into  a  national  calamity. 

But  we  forget,  that  as  far  as  the  interruption  of  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debts  due  to  her  merchants  could  be  fuppofed  to 
operate  upon  Great  Britain,  war  itfelf  would  effentially  anfwer 
the  purpofes  of  confifcation  or  fequeltration — By  interrupting 
trade  and  intercourfe,  it  is  in  fact,  in  a  great  degree,  a  virtual 
fequeltration.  Remittances  to  any  extent  become  impractica- 
ble. There  are  few  ways,  in  which,  on  account  of  the  ltate 
of  war,  it  is  lawful  to  make  them  j  and  debtors  are,  for  the 
molt  part,  enough  difpofed  to  embrace  pretexts  of  procras- 
tination. 

The  inconvenience  of  deferred  payment  would,  therefore-, 
be  felt  by  Great  Britain,  with  little  mitigation,  from  the 
bare  exiltence  of  war,  without  the  neceflity  of  our  govern- 
ment incurring  the  difcredit  and  refponfibility  of  a  fpecial 
interference. 

Indeed,  as  far  as  the  dread  of  eventual  lofs  can  operate,  it 
ought,  in  a  great  meafure  to  have  its  effect  exclufive  of  the 
idea  of  confifcation.  Great  Britain  mult  want  reflection,  not 
to  be  fenfible,  that,  in  making  war  upon  us,  (he  makes  war 
upon  her  own  merchants  *,  by  the  depredations  upon  our  trade 
destroying  thofe  refources  from  which  they  are  to  be  paid.  If 
fhe  be  indifferent  to  this  confideration,  it  will  be  becaufe  (he  is 
governed  by  fome  motive  or  pafiion  powerful  enough  to  difpofc 
her  to  run  the  rifle  of  the  entire  lofs — in  the  reliance  of  obtain- 
ing indemnification  by  the  acquisitions  of  war,  or  in  the  terms 
•f  peace. 


20  Ca  MILL  us—No.  XXI. 

Will  it  be  faid,  that  the  feizure  of  the  debts  would  put  in 
the  hands  of  our  government  a  valuable  refjurce  for  carrying 
on  the  war?  This,  upon  trial,  would  prove  as  fallacious  as 
all  the  reft.  Various  inducements  w-mld  prevent  debtors  f--om 
paying  into  the  treafury.  Some  would  decline  it  from  confeien- 
tious  fcruples,  from  a  doubt  of  the  rectitude  of  the  thiri 
others,  with  intent  to  make  a  merit  with  their  creditors  of 
the  concealment,  and  to  favor  their  own  future  credit  and  ad- 
vantage— others,  from  a  defire  to  retain  the  money  in  their  own 
employment — and  a  great  number,  from  the  apprehenfion  that 
the  treaty  of  peace  might  revive  their  refponGbility  to  the  cre- 
ditors, with  the  embarraflment  to  themfelyes  of  getting  L^ 
as  well  as  they  could,  the  monies  which  they  had  paid  into  the 
treasury.  Of  this,  our  lafl  treaty  of  peace,  in  the  opinion  of 
able  judges,  gave  an  example. — Thefe  caufes  and  others,  which 
do  not  as  readily  occur,  would  oppofe  great  obltacles  to  the 
execution  of  the  meafure. 

But  fevere  laws,  inflicting  heavy  penalties,  might  compel 
it — Experience  does  not  warrant  a  fanguine  reliance  upon  this 
expedient,  in  a  cafe  in  which  great  opportunity  of  conceal- 
ment is  united  with  ftrong  motives  of  inclination  or  intercit — 
It  would  require  an  inquifition,  juftly  intolerable  to  a  free  peo- 
ple— penalties,  which  would  confound  the  due  proportion  be- 
tween crime  and  punifhment,  to  detect,  or  to  deter  from  con- 
cealment and  evafion,  and  to  execute  the  law — Probably  no 
means  lefs  efficacious  than  a  revolutionary  tribunal  ami 
tine  would  go  near  to  anfwer  the  end. — There  are  but  few,  I 
truit,  to  whom  thefe  would  be  welcome  means. 

We  may  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  law  would  be  evaded 
to  an  extent,  which  would  difappoint  the  expectations  from 
it,  as  a  refource.  Some  monies,  no  doubt,  would  be  collect- 
ed; but  the  probability  is,  that  the  amount  would  be  infigni- 
ficant,  even  in  the  fcale  of  a  fingle  compaign — But,  mould 
the  collection  prove  as  complete,  as  it  ordinarily  is,  between 
debtor  and  creditor,  it  would  little,  if  at  all,  exceed  the  expenfe 
of  one  campaign. 

Hence  wc  perceive,  that,  regarding  the  meafure,  either  as 
a  mean  of  difabling  our  enemies,  or  as  a  refource  to  ourfelves, 
its  confequence  dwindles,  upon  a  clofe  furvey ;  it  cannot  pre- 
tend to  a  magnitude,  which  would  apologize,  either  for  a 
facrifice  of  national  honor  or  candor,  or  for  a  deviation  from 
the  true  principles  of  commerce  and  credit. 

But  let  us  take  a  fti'ther  view  of  its  difadvantages. 

A  nacicn,  in  cafe  of  war,  is  under  no  refponfibility  for  the 
delinquencies  or  frauds  of  its  citizens,  who  are  debtors  to  th 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXT.  ?! 

is  ericmy,  if  it  does  not  fpecially  interfere  With  the  pay-* 
Mient  of  the  debts  which  they  owe.  But,  if  it  inncrpofes  it;; 
authority  to  prevent  the  payment,  it  gives  a  claim  of  indemni- 
fication to  its  adverfary,  for  the  intervening  loftes  whicn  thofc 
delinquencies  or  frauds  may  occanori. — Whefher,  on  the  mak- 
ing of  peace,  this  would  be  infilled  upon  or  waved,  mi;;ht  depend 
much  on  the  good  or  ill  fuccefs  of  the  war;  bat  every  thing  wnicH 
adds  to  the  catalogue  of  our  enemy's  jult  pretentions,  t(f>C" 
cially  when  the  fortune  of  war  has  been  pretty  equal,  is  an 
evil,  either  as  an  additional  obltacle  to  fpeedy  peace,  or  as  an 
ingredient  to  render  the  terms  of  it  lefs  advantageous  to  our- 
felves.  And  it  is,  therefore,  unwife  in  a  government  to  in- 
creafe  the  lift  of  fuch  pretenfmns,  by  a  meafure,  which,  with- 
out  utility  to  itfelf,  adminifters  to  the  indolence  of  negligent, 
and  to  the  avidity  of  fraudulent,  individuals. 

Further— Every   fpecies  of  veprifai  or  annoyance,  which   A 
power  at   war  employs,    contrary   to  lib  'lie:-,    of 

doubtful  propriety,  in  the  estimation  cf  the  law  of  nations, 
departing  from  that  moderation.,  which,  in  latter  times,  ferves 
to  mitigite  tlie  feverities  of  war,  by  furmfhing  a  pretext  or 
provocation  to  the  other  fide  to  refort  to  extremities,  fefves  to 
embitter  the  fpirit  of  hoflinties,  and  to  extend  its  ravines. 
War  is  then  apt  to  become' more  fanguinarv,  more  wailing, 
and  every  wry  more  dc  flruclive.  This  is  a  ground  of  ur 
reflection  to  every  nation*  both  as  it  regards  hmo.  .-.-.:y  and 
policv  ;  to  this  country  it  preferits  itfelf,  accompanrd  with 
fcohfi  derations  of  peculiar  force.  A  vaftly-exrended  fea-coaft, 
overipre.id  with  defencelefs  towns,  would  offer  an  abundant 
prey  to  an  incenfed  and  malignant  eriemy^  having  the  power 
to  command  the  fea.  The  uiages  of  modern  war  forbid,  hofti- 
li tics  of  this  kind  ;  and  though  they  are  not  always  refpected, 
yet,  as  they  are  never  violated,  unlefs  by  way  of  tetaliation  ror 
a  violation  of  them  on  the  other  fide,  without  exciting  the  re- 
probation of  the  impartial  part  of  mankind,  fuiiying  the  glory, 
and  blading  the  reputation  of  the  party  which  difreg.irds  them, 
this  Cbnfideration  has,  in  general,  force  fuihcieiit  to  induce  an 
ohfervance  of  them.  But  the  Confifcation  or  fcq'ueitration  of 
private  debts,  or  private  property  in  public  fund",  now  gene- 
rally regarded  as  an  odious  and  unwarrantable  meaUire,  would, 
as  between  us  and  Great  Britain,  contain  a  poignant  Uing.  Its 
tiFeci  to  ev  iperarc,  in  an  extreme  degree,  both  the  nation  and 
government  of  that  country,  cannot  be  doubted.  A  difpohtioil 
to  retaliate,  is  a  natural  coniequence  ;  and  it  \vi  uhl  not  be 
difficult  for  us  to  be  made  to  fuffer  beyond  any  poffible  degree 
of  advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  oecalion  ol  the  retaliation. 

VoL.  hl  tt 


11  Ca  MILL  us—  No.  XXf. 

It  were  much   wifcr  to  leave  the    property  of  Britifh  fubjects, 
an  untouched  pledge  for  the  moderation  cf  its  government,  in 
mode  of  profecuting  the  war. 

;as,  if  requifite,  might  be  proved  fr<  m  the  records 
of  hiftory)  in  national  controverGes,  it  is  of  real  importance 
to  conciliate  the  good  opinion  of  mankind  •,  and  it  is  even  ufe- 
ful  to  prrferve  or  gain  that  of  our  enemy.  The  latter  facili- 
tates accommodation  and  peace  ;  the  former  attracts  pood  of- 
fices, friendly  interventions,  fometimes  direct  fupport,  from 
others. — The  exemplary  conduct,  in  general,  of  our  country, 
in  our  corned  for  independence,  was  probably  not  a  little  fer- 
viceable  to  us  in  this  ways  it  fecured,  to  the  intrinfic  goodnefs 
of  cur  cauie,  every  collateral  advantage,  and  gave  it  a  popu- 
larity among  nations,  unalloyed  and  unimpaired,  which  even 
fto'.e  into  the  cabinets  of  princes.  A  contrary  policy  tends  to 
contrary  confequences.  Though  nations,  in  the  main,  are  go- 
verned by  what  they  fuppcfe  their  intereft,  he  muft  be  imper- 
fectly verfed  in  human  nature,  who  thinks  it  indifferent,  whe- 
ther the  maxims  of  a  Hate  tend  to  excite  kind  or  unkind  dif- 
pofitiens  it!  others,  or  who  does  not  know,  that  thefe  difpofi- 
tions  may  inlenfibly  mould  or  bias  the  views  of  felf-intereit. — 
This  were  to  fuppofe  that  rulers  only  reafon — do  not  feel  j  in 
other  words,  are  not  men. 

Moreover,  the  meafures  of  war  ought  ever  to  look  forward 
to  peace.  The  conhfeation  or  fequeftration  of  the  private  pro- 
perty of  an  enemy  muft  always  be  a  point  of  ferious  difculfion, 
when  intereft  or  neceffity  leads  to  negociations  for  peace.  Un- 
lefs  when  ahfolutely  prcftrate  by  the  war,  reftitution  is  likely 
to  conftitute  an  ultimatum  of  the  fuffer.v;  party.  It  muft  be 
agreed  to,  or  the  war  protracted,  and  at  laft,  it  is  probable,  it 
muft  ftill  be  agreed  to.  Should  a  refufal  of  reftitution  prolong 
the  war  for  only  one  year,  the  chance  is,  that  more  will  be 
loft  than  was  gained  by  the  confifcation.  Should  it  be  neceffary 
finally  to  make  it,  after  prolonging  the  war,  the  difadvantage 
will  preponderate  in  a  ratio  to  the  prolongation.  Should  it  be, 
in  the  firft  inftance,  aflented  to,  what  will  have  been  gained  ? 
The  temporary  ufe  of  a  fund  of  inconfiderable  moment,  in 
the  general  iffue  of  the  war,  at  the  expenle  of  juftice,  cha- 
racter, credit,  and,  perhaps,  of  having  fharpened  the  evils  cf 
war.  How  infinitely  preferable  to  have  drawn  an  equal  fund 
from  our  own  refourceSj  which,  with  good  management,  is 
always  practicable  ! — If  the  reftitution  includes  damages,  on 
account  of  the  interference,  for  the  failures  of  individuals,  the 
loan  will  have  been  the  mod  coftly  that  could  have  been  made.  It 
has  been   eifewhere  obferved,  that   our   treaty  of  peace  with 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXI.  23 

Great  Britain  gives  an  example  of  reftitution.  The  late  one 
between  France  and  Piuffia  gives  another.  This  mud  become 
every  day  more  and  more  a  matter  of  courfe,  becaufe  the 
immunity  of  mercantile  debts  becomes  every  day  more  and 
more  important  to  trade,  better  underftood  to  be  fo,  and 
more  clearly  confidered  as  enjoined  by  the  principles  of  the 
law  of  nations. 

Thus  we  fee,  that  in  reference  to  the  Gmple  question  of  war 
and  peace,  the  meafure  of  confifcation  or  fequeftration  is  mark- 
ed with  every  feature  of  impolicy. 

We  have  before  feen,  that  the  pretenGons  of  a  right  to 
do  the  one  or  the  other,  has  a  moft  inimical  afpeft  towards 
commerce  and  credit. 

Let  us  refume  this  view  of  the  fubject.  The  credit,  which 
our  merchants  have  been  able  to  obtain  abroad,  effentially  in 
Great  Britain,  has,  from  the  firft  fettle ment  of  our  country  to 
this  day,  been  the  animating  principle  of  our  foreign  com- 
merce. This  every  merchant  knows  and  feels; — and  every  in- 
telligent merchant  is  fenfible,  that,  for  many  years  to  come, 
the  cafe  mull  continue  the  fame.  This,  in  our  fituation,  is  a 
peculiar  reafon,  of  the  utmolt  force,  for  renouncing  the  pre- 
tenfion  in  queftion. 

The  exercife  of  it,  or  the  ferious  apprehenfion  of  its  exer- 
cife,  would  neceffarily  have  one  of  two  effects. — It  would  deprive 
our  merchants  of  the  credit,  [0  important  to  them,  or  it  would 
oblige  them  to  pay  a  premium  for  it,  proportioned  to  the  opi- 
nion of  the  ritlc.  Or,  to  fpeak  more  truly,  it  would  combine 
the  two  effects;  it  would  cramp  credit,  and  fubjeel  what  was 
given  to  a  high  premium.  The  moil  obvious  and  familiar  prin- 
ciples of  human  action  eilablifh,  that  the  confuleration  for 
money  or  property,  lent  or  credited,  is  moderate  orotherwife, 
according  to  the  opinion  of  fecurity  or  hazard,  and  that  the 
quantity  of  either  to  be  obtained,  on  loan  or  credit,  is  in  a  great 
degree  contracted  or  enlarged  by  the  fame  rale. 

Thus  fhould  we,  in  the  operations  ot  our  trade,  pay  ex- 
orbitantly for  a  pretention,  which  is  of  little  value,  or  rather, 
which  is  pernicious,  even  in  the  relations  to  which  its  uti.it v 
IS  referred.  What  folly  to  cherifii  it  !  How  much  greater  the 
folly  ever  to  think  of  exercifing  it  !  It  never  can  be  exer- 
cife d  hereafter,  in  our  country,  without  great  and  laitin^ 
mifchief. 

Inltead  of  cherifhing  fo  odious  a  pretenfion,  as  "  our  beft, 
our  only  weapon  of  defence," — wifdom  admonilhcs  us  to  be 
eager  to  call  it  from  us,  as  a   weapon  moft  dangerous  to  the 


jty  Camillus— No.  XXif. 

wearer,  prokribed  by  the  laws  of  nations,  by  die  h\v3  of  ho* 
nor,  and  by  every  principle  of  found  policy. 

Every  mere!  a  it  ought  to  uefire  thac  the  mod  perfect  tran- 
quillity, on  :  t,  in  foreign  countries,  fhould  facilitate 
to  him,  on  the  beft  and  cheapeit  terms,  the  credit  for  which 
he  has  cccafion.  And  every  other  citizen  ought  to  defire,  that 
he  may  be  thus  freed  from  a  continual  contribution,  in  the 
enhanced  priced  every  imported  commodity  he  confumes,  tor 
wards  defraying  the  premium  which  the  want  of  that  traiupiil- 
lity  is  calculated  to  generate. 

CAMiLLUS. 


No.    XXII. 


THE  analogy  of  the  ftipulation  in  the  icth  article,  with 
flipulations  in  our  other  treaties,  and  in  the  treaties  be- 
tween other  nations,  is  the  remaining  topic  of  difcuffion.  Af- 
ter this,  attention  will  be  paid  to  fuch  obfervations,  by  way  of 
objection  to  the  article,  as  may  not  have  been  before  exprefsly 
or  virtaaihj   anfwered. 

The  20th  article  of  our  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with 
France,  is  in  thefc  words: 

"  For  the  betier  promoting  of  commerce,  on  both  fides,  it 
is  agreed,  that  if  a  war  fbaii  break  out  between  the  fa  id  two 
nariom,  fix  .months,  after  the  proclamation  of  war,  lhall  be 
allowed  to  the  merchants  in  the  cities  ;\v\i\  towns  where  they 
live,  for  felling  and  tranfporting  their  goods  and  merchandizes  ; 
and  if  any  thing  be  taken  from  them,  or  any  injury  be  done 
them  within  that  term  by  either  party,  or  the  people  or 
fubjects  of  either,  full  fatisfaction  (hall  be  made  for  the  fame." 

The  1 8th  article  of  our  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with 
the  United  Netherlands,  is  in  thefe  words; 

u  For  the  better  promoting  of  commerce,  on  both  fides,  it 
is  agreed,  that  if  a  war  fhouid  break  out  between  their  high 
mightinefies,  the  States  General  of  the  United  Netherlands, 
and  the  United  States  of  America,  there  (hall  always  be  granted 
to  the  fubjecls  on  each  fide,  the  term  of  nine  months,  aftei  the 
date  of  the  rupture  or  the  proclamation  of  war,  to  the  end 
that  they  may  retire  with  their  effects,  and  tranfport  them 
where  they  pleafe,  which  it  fhail  be  lawful  fur  them  to  do,  as 
well  as  to  fell  and  tranfport  their  effects  and  goods,  with  all 
freedom  and  without  any  hindrance,  md  without  being  able 


Ca  mill  us — No.  XXII.  25 

to  proceed,  during  the  faid  term  of  nine  months,  to  any  arreft 
of  their  effects,  much  lets  of  their  perfons  ;  on  the  contrary, 
there- (hall  be  given  them,  for  their  veffels  and  effects  which 
they  would  carry  away,  paffports  and  fafe  conduces  for  the 
ncareft  ports  of  their  refpetlive  countries,  and  for  the  time 
neceffary  for  the  voyage." 

The  2 2d  article  of  our  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  with 
Sweden,  is  in  thefe  words  : 

"  In  order  to  favor  commerce,  on  both  (ides,  as  much  as 
poffible,  it  is  agreed,  that  in  cafe  war  fhould  break  out  between 
the  two  nations,  the  term  of  nine  months  after  the  declara- 
tion of  war  (hall  be  allowed  to  the  merchants  and  fubjects 
refpectively,  on  one  fide  and  on  the  other,  in  order  that  they 
may  withdraw  with  their  effects  and  moveables,  which  they 
fhall  be  at  liberty  to  carry  off  or  to  fell  where  they  pleafe, 
without  the  leait  obfeaele — nor  (hall  any  feize  their  effects,  and 
much  k-fs  their  perfons,  during  the  faid  nine  months;  but  on 
the  contrary,  paffports,  which  (hall  be  valid  for  a  time  necef- 
fary for  their  return,  ihrdl  be  given  them  for  their  veffels  and 
the  effect s  which  they  (hall  be  willing  to  carry  with  them — and, 
if  any  thing  is  taken  from  them,  or  any  injury  is  done  to  them 
by  one  of  the  parties,  their  people  and  fubjects,  during  the 
term  above  prefcribed,  full  and  entire  fatisfaction  (hall  be  made 
to  them  on  that  account." 

The  i^d  article  of  our  treaty  of  arnity  and  commerce  with 
PruiTia,  contains  this  provifion  : 

"  If  war  (hould  arife  between  the  two  contracting  parties, 
the  merchants  of  either  country,  then  redding  in  the  other, 
(hall  be  allowed  to  remain  nine  months,  to  collect  their  debts 
and  fettle  their  affairs,  and  may  depart  freely,  carrying  off  all 
their  effects  without  moleftation  or  hindrance." 

Thefe  articles  of  four,  and  the  only  commercial  treaties  we 
had  with  foreign  powers,  prior  to  the  pending  treaty  with 
Great  Britain,  though  differing  in  terms,  agree  in  fubitance; 
except  as  to  time,  which  varies  from  fix  to  nine  months.  And 
they  clearly  amount  to  this,  that  upon  the  breaking  out  of  a  war 
between  the  contracting  parties  in  each,  cue,  there  iha'.l  be,  for 
a  term  of  fix  or  nine  months,  f 1  t  protection  and  fecurity 
to  the  perfons  and  property  of  the  (ubjects  of  one,  which  are 
then  in  the  territories  of  the  other,  with  liberty  to  collect  their 
debts,-  to  fell  their  goods  and  merchandizes,  and   to    remove, 


•  The  term  "  debts,"  is  only  exjm  fTc<!  in  the  Pruflian  treaty,  but  there  are 
in  the  oilier  treaties,  terms  which  include  debt;,  and  tins  ib  the  manifci)  fpirit 
and  intern  of  all. 


26  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXII. 

with  their  effects,  wherefoever  they  plcafe.  For  this  term  of 
fix  or  nine  months,  there  is  a  complete  fufpenfion  of  the  pre- 
tended right  to  confifcate  or  fequelter,  giving,  or  being  defign- 
ed  to  give,  an  opportunity  to  withdraw  the  whole  property 
which  the  fubjedts  or  citizens  of  one  party  have  in  the  country 
of  the  other. 

The  differences  between  thefe  flipulations  and  that  in  the 
article  under  examination  arc  chiefly  thefe  :  the  latter  is  con- 
fined to  debts,  property  in  the  public  funds  and  in  public  and 
private  banks,  without  any  limitation  of  the  duration  of  the 
protection — The  former  comprehends,  in  addition,  goods  and 
merchandizes,  with  a  limitation  of  the  protection  to  a  term  of  fix 
or  nine  months;  but  with  the  intent  and  fuppofition  that  the 
term  allowed  may  and  will  be  adequate  to  entire  fecurity.  The 
principle,  therefore,  of  all  the  flipulations  is  the  fame  ;  each 
aims  at  putting  the  perfons  and  property  of  the  fubjedts  of  one 
enemy,  efpecially  merchants,  being  within  the  country  of  the 
other  enemy  at  the  commencement  of  a  war,  out  of  the  reach 
of  confifcation  or  fequeftration. 

The  perfons  whofe  names  are  to  our  other  treaties,  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  are  Benjamin  Franklin,  Silas  Deane, 
Arthur  Lee,  John  Adams,  and  Thomas  Jefferfon.  The  three 
firft  are  to  the  treaty  with  France — Mr.  Adams  is  fingly  to  that 
with  the  United  Netherlands — Dr.  Franklin  fingly  to  that  witli 
Sweden,  and  thefe  two,  with  Mr.  Jefferfon,  are  jointly  to  tliat 
•with  Pruflia — The  treaty  with  Sweden  was  concluded  in  April, 
17S3;  that  with  Pruffia,  in  Augull,  1785.  Thefe  dates  repel 
the  idea,  that  confederations  of  policy,  relative  to  the  war, 
might  have  operated  in  the  cafe. 

We  have,  confequently,  the  farichon  of  all  thefe  characters 
to  the  principle,  which  governed  the  ftipulation  entered  into 
by  Mr.  Jay,  and  not  only  from  the  ratification  of  the  former 
treaties  at  different  periods,  diftant  from  each  other,  by  differ- 
ent defcriptions  of  men  in  our  public  councils,  but  alfo  from 
there  never  having  been  heard,  in  the  community,  a  lifp  or 
murmur  againft  the  ftipulation,  through  a  period  of  feventeen 
years,  counting  from  the  dare  of  the  treaty  with  France,  there 
is  juft  ground  to  infer  a  Coincidence  of  the  public  opinion  of 
the  country. 

I  verily  believe,  that  if,  in  the  year  1783,  a  treaty  had  been 
made  with  England,  containing  an  article  fimilar  to  the  10th 
in  the  prefent  treaty,  it  would  have  met  with  general  acquief- 
cence.  The  fpirit  of  party  had  not  then  predifpofed  men's 
minds  to  eflimate  the  propriety  of  a  meafure  according  to  the 
agent,  rather  than  according  to  its  real  fitnefs  and  quality. 


Camillus — No.  XXII.  27 

What  would  then  have  been  applauded  as  wife,  liberal,  equita- 
ble, and  expedient,  is  now,  in  more  inflances  than  one,  under 
the  peftilential  influence  of  that  baleful  fpirit,  condemned  a9 
improvident,  impolitic,  and  dangerous. 

Our  treaty  with  Pruflia,  the  23d  article  of  which  has  been 
cited,  is  indeed  a  model  of  liberality,  which,  for  the  principles 
it  contains,  does  honor  to  the  parties,  and  has  been  in  this 
country  a  fubject  of  deferved  and  unqualified  admiration.  It 
contradicts,  as  if  lludioufly,  thole  principles  of  reftrictien  and 
exciution,  which  are  the  foundations  of  the  mercantile  and  na- 
vigating fyltem  of  Europe.  It  grants  perfect  freedom  of  con- 
fcici.ee  and  worfhip  to  the  refpective  fubject  s  and  citizens, 
with  no  other  reftraint  than  that  they  (hall  not  infult  the  reli- 
gion of  others.  Adopting  the  rule,  that  free  (hips  (hall  make 
free  goods,  it  extends  the  protection  to  the  perfons  as  well  as 
to  the  goods  of  enemies. — Enumerating,  as  contraband,  only 
"  arms,  ammunition,  and  military  floies,"  it  even  provides  that 
contraband  articles  fliall  not  be  confifcated,  but  may  be  taken 
on  the  condition  of  paying  for  them.  It  provides  againft  embar- 
goes of  veiTels  and  effects.  It  exprefsly  exempts  women,  chil- 
dren, fcholars  of  every  faculty,  cultivators  of  the  earth,  arti- 
zans,  manufacturers,  and  fifliermen,  unarmed  and  inhabiting 
unfortified  towns,  villages,  and  places,  and  in  general,  all 
others  whofc  occupations  are  for  the  common  fubfiltence  and 
benefit  of  mankind,  their  houfes,  fields,  and  goods,  from  mo- 
leiiatiwH  in  their  perfons  and  employments,  and  from  burning, 
waiting,  and  deftruction,  in  time  of  war;  and  ftipulates  pay- 
ment at  a  reafonable  price  for  what  may  be  necetiarily  taken 
from  them  for  military  ufe. — It  like  wife  protects  from  feizure 
and  conhfeation,  in  time  of  war,  veflels  employed  in  trade, 
and  inhibits  the  granting  commiflions  to  private  armed  veflels, 
empowering  them  to  take  or  deftroy  fuch  trading  veflels,  or  to 
interrupt  their  commerce;  and  it  makes  a  variety  of  excellent 
proviiions  to  feeure  to  prifoners   of  war,  a  humane  treatment. 

Thcfe  particulars  are  ftated  as  evidence  of  the  temper  of  the 
day,  and  of  a  policy,  which  then  prevailed,  to  bottom  our  fyf- 
tem  with  regard  to  foreign  nations  upon  thofe  grounds  of  mo- 
deration and  equity,  by  which  reafon,  religion  and  philofophy 
had  tempered  the  harfh  maxims  of  more  early  times.  It  is  pain- 
ful to  obferve  an  effort  to  make  the  public  opinion,  in  this  re- 
fpect,  retrograde,  and  to  infect  our  councils  with  a  fpirit  con- 
trary to  thefe  falutary  advances  towards  improvement  in  truf 
civilization  and  humanity. 

l!i  we  pafs  from  our  own  treaties,  to  thofe  between  other 
nations,  we  find  that  the  provifions,  which  have  been  extracted 


28  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXII. 

from  ours  have  very  nearly  become  formulas  in  the  conven- 
tions of  Europe.  As  examples  of  this  may  be  confulted,  the 
following  articles  of  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  otl 
powers  (to  wit)  the  XVlIlth  article  of  a  treaty  of  peace  and 
commerce  with  Portugal,  tin  1642 — the  XXXVIih  article  of  a 
treaty  of  peace,  commerce,  and  alliance  with  Spain,  in  1067 
— theXIXth  article  of  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  the  lid  of  a  treaty 
of  commerce  with  France,  both  in  17  13,  and  the  Xilt 
cf  a  treaty  of  commerce  and  navigation  with  Ruffia,  in  i~66. 
The  article  with  Porcugal  provides,  that  if  difficulties  and 
doubts  fhali  arife  between  the  two  nations,  which  give  reafon 
to  apprehend  the  interruption  of  commerce,  public  notice  of  it 
fhall  be  given  to  the  fubjects  on  both  fides,  and  rfter  that  no- 
tice, two  years  fhall  be  allowed  to  carry  away  the  merchandizes 
and  goods,  and  in  the  mean  time,  there  fhall  be  no  injury  or 
prejudice  done  to  any  perfons  or  goods  on  either  fide. 

The  articles  with  France,  in  addition  to  the  provifions  com-, 
mon  in  other  cafes,  particularly  ftipulate,  that  during  the  term 
of  the  protection  (fix  months)  "  the  fubjecls  on  each  fide  fhall 
enjoy  good  and  fpeedy  juftice,  (o  that  during  the  faid  fpace  of 
fix  months,  they  may  be  able  to  recover  their  goods  and  effects, 
entrulled  as  well  to  the  public,  as  to  private  perfons." 

The  aricle  with  Ruffia,  befidesftipulating  an  exemption  from 
confirmation  for  one  year,  with  the  privilege  to  remove  and 
carry  away  in  fafety,  provides  additionally,  that  the  fub- 
jecls of  each  party  "  fhall  be  further  permitted,  either  at  or 
before  their  departure,  to  confign  the  effects  which  they  fhall 
not  as  yet  have  difpofed  of,  as  well  as  the  debts  that  mall  be  due 
to  them,  to  fuch  perfons  as  they  fhall  think  proper,  in  order  to 
difpofe  of  them  according  to  their  defire  and  for  their  benefit; 
which  debts,  the  debtors  fhall  be  obliged  to  pay  in  the  fame 
manner  as  if  no  fuch  rupture  had  happened." 

All  theft  articles'  are,  with  thofe  of  our  treaties,  analagous 
in  principle,  as  heretofore  particularly  explained,  to  the  ioih 
article  of  the  treaty  under  difcuffion.  That  of  the  Briiifh  treaty 
with  France  designates  exprefsly  debts  due  from  the  public  as 
well  as  thofe  due  from  priva.e  perfons.  That  with  Ruffia  goes 
the  full  length  of  cur  tenth  article;  empowering  the  creditors 
on  each  fitie  to  nifign  the  debts,  which  they  are  not  able  to  col- 
lect within  the  term  cf  their  refidence,  to  whomfoever  they 
think,  fit,  for  their  own  benefit,  and  declaring  that  thefe  debts 
fhall  hi  paid  to  the  affigns  in  the  fame  manner  as  if  no  rupture 
rtad  happened. 

There  is  a  document  extant,  which  may  fairly  be  fuppofrd 
to  exprefs  the  {crfc  of  the  government  of  France,  at  the  period 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXII.  29 

to  which  it  relates,  of  the  foundation  of  thefe  ftipulations.  It 
is  a  memorial  of  Mr.  Bufly,  miniller  from  the  court  of  France 
to  that  of  London,  for  negotiating  peace,  dated  in  the  year 
1761,  and  contains  thefe  paffages  :  "  As  it  is  impracticable  for 
two  princes,  who  make  war  with  each  other,  to  agree  between 
them  which  is  the  aggrefjbr  with  regard  to  the  other  *  equity  and 
humanity  have  dictated  tliefe  precautions,  that  where  an  unfore- 
feen  rupture  happens  fuddenly  and  without  any  previous  decla- 
ration, foreign  veflels,  which,  navigating  under  the  fecurity  cf 
peace  t  and  ot  treaties,  happen,  at  the  time  of  the  rupture,  to 
be  in  either  of  the  refpedtive  ports,  (hall  have  time  and  full 
liberty  to  withdraw  themfelves. 

"  This  wile  provifion,  fo  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  good 
faith,  conjhtutcs  a  part  of  the  laiv  of  nations^  and  the  article  of 
the  treaty,  which  fanctihes  thefe  precautions,  ought  to  be  faith- 
fully executed,  notwithstanding  the  breach  of  the  other  articles 
of  the  treaty  which  is  the  natural  confequence  of  the  war. 

'*  The  courts  of  France  and  Great  Britain  ufed  this  falutary 
precaution  in  the  treaties  of  Utrecht  and  Aix  la  Chapelle." 

Thefe  paflagts  place  the  fecurity  ftipulatec!  in  the  treaties  for 
the  perfons  and  property  of  the  fubjecls  of  one  party  found  in 
the  country  of  another,  at  the  beginning  of  a  War,  upon  the 
footing  of  its  conjlituting  a  part  of  the  law  of  nations,  which  may 
be  confidered  as  a  formal  diplomatic  recognition  of  the  princi- 
ple for  which  we  contend.  As  this  pofition  was  not  itfelf  in 
difpute  between  the  two  governments,  but  merely  a  collateral 
inference  from  it,  applicable  to  veflels  taken  at  fea,  prior  to  a 
decl. nation  of  war,  it  may  be  regarded  as  a  refpectable  telli- 
mouy  of  the  law  of  nations  on  the  principal  point. 

If  the  law  of  nations  confers  this  exemption  from  feizurc 
upon  veflelsj  which,  at  the  time  of  the  rupture,  happen  to  be 
in  the  refpedYive  ports  of  the  belligerent  parties,  it  is  evident 
that  it  muft  equally  extend  its  protection  to  debts  contracted  in 
a  courfe  of  lawful  trade.  Veflels  are  particularly  mentioned, 
becaufe  the  difcuilion  turned  upon  vefleis  feized  at  fea.  But  the 
reference  to  the  treaties  of  Utrecht  and  Aix  la  Chapelle  fhows, 
that  the  minifter,  in  his  observation,  had  in  view  the  whole 
fubject  matter  of  the  articles  of  thofe  treaties,  which  provide 
for  the  fecurity  of  merchants  and  their  effects  in  the  event  of 
war. 

Vol.  III.  E 

*  Thus  we  find  it  the   fentimem  cf  this  minifter,  that  it  is  impoJJSblc  tot  tvo 
princes  who  make  war  with  e  ich  other,  to  agree  which  is  the  aggrijfor  tvitb  t 
to  tie  other.   And  yet  Mr.  f.y  was  to  extort  from  Great   Britain  an  acknowledg- 
ment, that  foe  iv  :s  tie  aggrrjj'ji  -with  regard  tt  us,  and  was  guilty  of  pufillaaimity  m 
waving  the  quellion. 


^o  Cam  ill  us — No.  XXII. 

This  con  form  ft  y  in  principle,  of  the  article  under  exami- 
nation, with  the  proviiions  in  (b  many  treaties  of  our  own  and 
of  other  nations,  taken  in  connexion  witli  the  comment  of  Mr. 
Buffy,  brings  a  very  powerful  fupport  to  the  article.  It  is  addi- 
tional and  Full  evidence  that  our  envoy,  in  agreeing  to  it,  did 
not  go  upon  new  and  untrodden  ground  ;  that,  on  the  con- 
trary) he  was  in  a  beaten  track  j  that,  in  purfuing  the  dictates 
of  reafon,  and  the  better  opinion  of  writers,  as  to  the  rule  of 
the  law  of  nations  reletting  the  point,  he  was,  at  the  fame 
tirr.e,  purfuing  the  examples  of  all  the  other  treaties,  which 
we  had  ourfelves  made,  and  of  many  of  thofe  of  other 
countries. 

It  is  now  incumbent  upon  mc  to  perform  my  promiie  of 
rcp'ving  to  ifuch  objections  to  the  article  as  may  remain  unan- 
swered by  the  preceding  repiarks.  It  is  with  pleafure  I  note 
that  the  fiAd  is  very  narrow — that,  indeed,  there  fcarcely  re- 
mains any  thing  which  is  not  fo  frivolous  and  impotent  as  al-. 
mod  to  forbid  a  ferious  replication — It  will  therefore  be  my 
aim  to  be  brief. 

It  is  faid,  there  is  only  an  apparent  reciprocity  in  the  ar- 
ticle, millions  being  due  on  our  fide,  and  little  or  nothing 
on  rhe  other. 

The  anfwer  to  this  is,  that  no  right  being  relinquished,  on 
either  fide,  no  privilege  granted,  the  ftipulation  amounting 
only  to  a  recognition  of  a  rule  of  the  law  of  nations,  to  a  pro- 
mife  to  a.bitain  from  injuftice  and  a  breach  of  faith,  there  is 
no  room  for  an  argument  about  reciprocity  further  than  to  re- 
quire that  the  promiie  fhould  be  mutual,  as  is  the  cafe — 
This  is  the  only  equivalent  which  the  nature  of  the  fubjecl: 
demands  or  permits — It  would  be  dishonorable  to  accept  a 
boon  merely  for  an  engagement  to  fulfil  a  moraj  obligation — 
Indeed,  as  heretofore  intimated,  the  true  rule  of  reciprocity  in 
ftipulations-  of  treaties,  is  equal  right,  not  equal  advantage  from 
each  feveral  ftipulation. 

But  it  has  been  fliown,  that  the  ftipulation  will  be  beneficial 
to  us,  by  the  confidence  which  it  will  give  on  the  other  fide, 
obviating  and  avoiding  the  obftruttions  to  trade,  the  injuries 
to,  and  incumbrances  upon,  credit,  naturally  incident  to  the  dif- 
truft  and  apprehenfion,  which,  after  the  queftion  had  been 
once  moved,  were  to  be  expecled — Here,  if  a  compenfation 
were  required,  there  is  one — Let  me  add  as  a  truth,  which, 
perhaps,  has  no  exception,  however  uncongenial  with  the 
fafhionable  patriotic  creed — that,  in  the  wife  order  of  providence, 
Rations,  in  a  temporal  fenfe,  may  fafely  truft  the  maxim,  that 


Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXII. 


3* 


the   obfervancc   of  juilicc   carries   with  it  its  own  and  a  full 
reward. 

It  is  alfo  faid,  that  having  bound  ourftlves  by  treaty,  we 
mall  hereafter  lofe  the  credit  of  moderation,  which  would 
attend  a  forbearance  to  exercife  the  rieht.  But  it  having  been 
demonstrated,  that  no  fuch  right  exitts,  we  only  renounce  a 
claim  to  the  negative  merit  of  not  committing  injuflice,  and 
we  acquire  the  pofitive  praife  of  exhibiting  a  willingnefs  to 
renounce  explicitly  a  pretenfion,  which  might  be  the  inftru- 
rnent  of  opprefhon  and  fraud — It  is  always  honorable  to  give 
proof  of  upright  intention. 

It  is  further  faid,  that  under  the  protection  cJ  this  ftipula- 
tion  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  who  has  already  din 

cur  funds  (the  affertors  would  be  puzzled  to  bring  ; 
the  fact)  may  engrofs  the  whole  capital  of  the  bank  of  the 
United  States,  and  thereby  fecure  the  uncontrouled  direction 
of  it — that  he  may  hold  the  ftock  in  trie  name  of  his  ambaf- 
fador,  or  of  fome  citizen  of  the  United  States,  perhaps  a  fe- 
nator,  who,  if  of  the  virtuous  twenty,*  might  be  proud  of 
the  honor — that  thus  our  citizens,  in  time  of  peace,  might 
experience  the  mortification  of  being  beholden  to  Britifh  di- 
rectors, for  the  accommodations  they  might  want — that,  in 
time  of  war,  our  operations  might  be  cramped  at  the  pleafure 
of  his  majelty,  and  according  as  he  fliould  fee  fit  or  not  to  ac- 
commodate our  government  with  loans — and  that  both  in 
peace  and  war  we  may  be  reduced  to  the  abject  condition  of 
having  the  whole  capital  of  our  national  bank  adminiftercd  by 
his  Britannic  majeity. 

Shall  I  treat  this  rhapfody  with  ferioufnefs  or  ridicule  ? 

The  capital  of  the  bank  of  the  United  States  is  ten  millions 
of  dollars,  little  fhorf,  at  the  prefent  market  price,  of  three 
millions  of  pounds  fterling ;  but,  from  the  natural  operation 
of  fuch  a  demand,  in  railing  the  price,  it  is  not  probable  that 
much  lefs  than  four  millions  fterling  would  fulhce  to  complete 
the  monopoly.  I  have  never  underftood,  that  the  private  purfe 
of  his  Britannic  majefty,  if  it  be  true,  as  aiTevted,  that  he  has 
already  witnefled  a  relilh  for  fpeculation  in  our  funds  (a  fact, 
however,  from  which  it  was  natural  to  infer  a  more  pacific  difpo- 
fition  towards  us)  was  fo  very  ample  as  conveniently  to  fpare  an 
item  of  fuch  fize  for  a  fpeculation  acrofs  the  Atlantic.  But, 
perhaps,  the  national  purfe  will  be  brought  to  his  aid — A* 
this  fuppofes  a  parliamentary  grant,  new  taxes  and  new  loans, 
it  does  not  feem  to  be  a  very  manageable   thing,  without  difr 

*  Thofc  who  a4?ifc<J  to  a  ratification  ci  :iu-  freafy, 


32  Gam  ill  us— No.  XXII. 

clofure  of  the  object,  and,  if  difclofed,  fo  very  unexampled 
an  attempt  of  a  foreign  government  would  prefent  a  cafe  com- 
pletely out  of  the  reach  of  all  ordinary  rules,  juflifying,  by 
the  manifeft  danger  to  u?,  even  war  and  the  confifcation  of  all 
that  had  been  purchnfed.  For  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  arti- 
cle does  not  protect  the  public  property  of  a  foreign  government, 
prince,  or  ft  ate,  independent  of  the  obfervation  juft  made, 
that  fuch  a  cafe  would  be  without  the  reach  of  ordinary  rules. 
It  may  be  added,  that  an  attempt  of  this  kind,  from  the  force 
of  the  pecuniary  capital  of  Great  Britain,  would,  as  a  precedent, 
threaten  and  alarm  all  nations.  Would  confequences  like  thefe 
be  incurred  ? 

But  let  it  be  fuppofed,  that  the  inclination  {hall  exift,  and 
that  all  difficulties  about  funds  have  been  furmounted — Still, 
to  effect  the  plan,  there  mufl  be,  in  all  the  ftockholders,  a 
willingnefs  to  fell  to  the  Britiih  king  or  his  agents,  as  well  as 
the  will  and  means,  on  his  part,  to  purchafe.  Here,  toOj 
fome  impediments  might  be  experienced  :  there  are  perfons 
who  might  choofe  to  keep  their  property  in  the  {hape  of  bank 
flock,  and  live  upon  the  income  of  it,  whom  price  would  not 
readily  tempt  to  part  with  it.  Befides,  there  is  an  additional 
obilacle  to  complete  fuccefs  : — The  United  .States  are  themfelves 
the  proprietors  of  two  millions  of  the  bank  (lock. 

Of  two  things,  one,  either  the  monopoly  of  his  Britannic 
majefly  would  be  known  (and  it  would  be  a  pretty  arduous 
ta(k  to  keep  it  a  fecret,  efpecially  if  the  fleck  was  to  (land, 
as  fuggefled,  in  the  name  of  his  ambaffadcr)  or  it  would  be 
unknown  and  concealed  under  unfufpecled  names :  In  the 
former  fuppofition,  the  obfervations  already  made  recur.  There 
■would  be  no  protection  to  it  from  the  article;  and  the  extra- 
ordinary nature  of  the  cafe  would  warrant  any  thing — Would 
his  majefty  or  the  parliament  choofe  to  trufl  fo  large  a  property 
in  fo  perilous  a  fituation  ? 

If,  to  avoid  this,  the  plan  fbould  be  to  keep  the  operation 
unknown,  the  mod  effectual  method  would  be  to  place  the 
flock  in  the  names  of  our  own  citizens.  This,  it  feems,  would 
be  attended  with  no  difficulty;  fince  even  our  fenators  would 
be  ambitious  of  the  honor :  and  if  they  lhould  have  qualms 
and  fears,  others  more  compliant  could,  no  doubt,  be  found 
amongft  the  numerous  fecretaries  or  adherents  of  Great  Bri- 
tain in  our  country  :  probably  fome  of  the  patriots  would  not 
be  inexorable,  if  properly  folicited.  Or,  in  the  lalt  refort,  per- 
fons might  be  fent  from  Great  Britain  to  acquire  naturalization 
for  the  exprefs  purpofe. 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXII.  33 

In  this  fuppofition,  too,  the  article  would  be  at  the  leaft  in- 
nocent. For  its  provifions  are  entirely  foreign  to  the  cafe  of 
ftock  {landing  in  the  names  of  our  own  citizens.  Tt  neither 
enlarges  nor  abridges  the  power  of  the  government  in  this 
refpect. 

Further,  how  will  the  article  work  the  miracle  of  plactncf  the 
bank  under  the  management  of  Britifh  directors  ?  It  gives  no 
new  rights,  no  new  qualifications. 

The  conftitution  of  the  bank  (fection  the  5 th»  7th  of  the 
act  of  incorporation)  has  provided,  with  folicitude,  thefe  im- 
portant guards,  againft  foreign  or  other  finifter  influence — I. 
That  none  but  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  fhall  be  eligible  as 
a  director.  2.  That  none  but  a  ftockholder,  act u -ill v  refident 
within  the  United  States,  fhall  vote  in  the  elections  by  proxy. 
3.  That  one  fourth  of  the  directors,  who  are  to  be  elected  annual- 
ly, muft  every  year  go  out  of  the  direcfh  >n.  4-  That  a  director 
may,  at  any  time,  be  removed  and  replaced  Hy  the  llockholders 
at  a  general  meeting.  <;.  That  a  fingle  (1:  ire  flu  1 1  give  one 
vote  for  directors,  while  any  number  of  fhares,  in  the  fame 
perfon,  co-partnerthip  or  body  politic,  will  not  give  more  than 
thirty  votes. 

Hence  it  is  impoflible,  that  the  bank  can  be  in  the  manage- 
ment of  Britilh  directors — a  Britifli  fubject  being  incapable  of 
being  a  director.  It  is  alfo  next  to  impoffible,  that  an  undue 
Britifh  influence  could  operate  in  the  choice  of  directors,  out 
of  the  number  of  our  own  citizens.  The  Britifh  king,  or  Bri- 
tifh fubjects  out  of  the  United  States,  could  not  even  have  a 
vote  by  attorney,  in  the  choice.  Schemes  of  fecret  monopoly 
could  not  be  executed,  becaufe  they  would  be  betrayed,  unlefs 
the  fecret  was  confined  to  a  fmall  number.  A  fmall  number, 
no  one  of  whom  could  have  more  than  thirty  votes,  would  be 
eafily  over-ruled  by  the  more  numerous  proprietors  of  fingle  or 
a  fmall  number  of  fhares,  with  the  addition  of  the  votes  of  the 
United  States. 

But  here  again  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  as  to  combina- 
tion with  our  own  citizens,  in  which  they  were  to  be  oftenfi- 
ble  for  any  pernicious  foreign  project — the  article  under  con- 
iideration  is  perfectly  nugatory — It  can  do  neither  ;;ood  nor 
harm,  fince  it  merely  relates,  as  to  the  exemption  trom  con- 
fiscation and  feizure  on  our  part,  to  the  known  property  of 
Britifli  fubjects. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  dangers  pourtrayed  to  us 
from  the  fpeculating  enterprizes  of  his  Britannic  majefty,  are 
the  vagaries  of  an  over-heated  imagination — or  the  contrivances 
of  a  fpirit  of  deception — and  that  fo  far  as  they  couLi  be  fup- 
pofed  to  have  the  lead  colour,  it  turns  upon  circumftances, 


34  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXII. 

upon  which  the  treaty  can  have  no  influence  whatever.  In 
taking  pains  to  cxpofe  their  futility,  1  have  been  principally 
led  by  the  ciefire  of  making  my  fellow-citizens  fenfrble,  in  this 
inflance,  as  in  others,  of  the  extravagancies  of  the  oppofers  of 
the  treaty. 

One  artifice  to  render  the  article  unacceptable  has  been  to 
put  cafes  of  extreme  mifconducl,  on  the  other  fide,  of  flagrant 
violations  of  the  law  of  nation:.,  of  war,  of  juftice,  and  of 
humanity  •,  and  to  afk,  whether,  under  fuch  circumftances,  the 
confifcation  or  fequeflration  cf  debts  would  not  be  juftifiable? 
— To  this  the  anfwer  is,  that  if  circumftances  fo  extraordinary 
fhould  arife,  as,  without  the  treaty,  would  warrant  fo  extra- 
ordinary an  act,  they  will  equally  warrant  it  under  the  treaty. 
For  cafes  of  this  kind  are  exceptions  to  all  general  rules.  They 
would  excufc  the  violation  of  an  exprefs,  or  pofitive,  as  well 
as  of  a  tacit  or  virtual  pledge  of  the  public  faith  :  which  de- 
fcribes  the  whole  difference  between  the  exiftence  and  nonT 
exiftence  of  the  article  in  queftion.  They  refembie  thofe  cafes 
of  extreme  neceflity  (through  excellive  hunger,  for  inftance) 
which,  in  the  eye  of  the  law  of  nature,  will  excufe  the  taking 
of  the  property  of  another,  or  thofe  cafes  of  extreme  abufe 
of  authority  of  rulers,  which,  amounting  unequivocally  to  ty- 
ranny, are  admitted  to  juftify  forcible  refiftance  to  the  efta- 
blifhed  authorities.  Conftitutions  of  government,  laws,  treaties, 
all  give  way  to  extremities  of  fuch  a  description — the  point 
of  obligation  is,  to  diftinguifh  them  with  G  peer  it  y,  and  not 
to  indulge  our  paflions  and  interefts,  in  fubftituting  pretended 
for  real  cafes. 

A  writer,  who  difgraces  by  adopting  the  name  of  Cicero, 
makes  a  curious  remark  by  way  of  objection.  He  affirms  that 
the  article  is  nugatory,  becaufe  a  treaty  is  diffolved  by  a  (late  of 
war,  in  which  flate  the  provifion  is  defigned  to  operate.  If  this 
be  true,  the  article  is  at  lead  harmlefs,  and  the  trouble  of 
painting  it  in  fuch  terrific  colours  might  have  been  fpared.  But 
it  is  not  true.  Reafon,  writers,  the  practice  of  all  nations  ac- 
cord in  this  pofition,  that  thofe  ftipulations,  which  contemplate 
the  flate  of  w?.r,  in  other  words,  which  are  defigned  to  operate 
in  cafe  of  war,  preferve  their  force  and  obligation  when  war 
takes  place.*  To  what  end  elfe  all  the  ftipulations  which  have 
been  cited  from  fo  many  treaties  P-j- 

*   Vattel,  B.  iii  ch.  x. 

f  Thii  writer  is  as  profligate  as  h-:  is  abfurd— Befides  imputing  to  Camillas,  in 
general  terms,  a  number  of  thi:i^>  of  which  he  never  dreamt,  he  has  the 
efiromcry  to  forge,  as  a  literal  quotation  from  him  (caJdiiig  it  hi»  twa  language  and 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXII. 


35 


Previous  to  a  conclufion  I  fhall  obferve,  barely  with  a  view  to 
accuracy,  that  the  article  leaves  unprotected  all  veflels,  goods 
and  merchandizes,  every  fpecies  of  property,  indeed,  except 
debts  between  individuals  and  the  property  of  individuals  in  the 
public  funds  and  in  public  and  private  banks.  With  this  excep- 
tion, whatever  before  may  have  been  liable  to  confifcation  or 
fequeftratiou,  (till  remains  io,  notwithitanding  any  thing  con- 
tained in  this  article. 

To  over-vate  the  value  and  force  of  cur  own  arguments  is  a 
natural  foible  of  felf-lovc — to  be  convinced  without  convincing 
others,  is  no  uncommon  fate  of  a  writer  orfpeaker — but  I  am 
more  than  ordinarily  miftaken  if  every  mind  open  to  conviction, 
will  not  have  bcerffatisficd  by  vttfiat  has  been  offered — that  the 
tenth  article  of  the  treaty  lately  rtegtjciatctl  with  Great  Britain, 
does  nothing  but  confirm,  by  a  pofitive  agreement,  a  rule  of  the 
law  of  nations — indicated  by  region,  fupported  by  the  better 
opinion  of  writers,  ratified  by  modern  ufage,  dictated  byjuf- 
tice  and  good  faith,  recognized  by  formal  atlsand  declarations 
of  different  nations,  witnetTed  by  diplomatic  teftimony,  fano 
tioned  by  our  treaties  with  other  countries,  and  by  treaties  be- 
tween other  countries — and  conformable  with  found  policy  and 
the  true  interefts  of  the  United  States. 

The  difcuflion  has  been  drawn  out  to  fo  great  a  length,  be- 
caufe  the  objections  to  this  article  arc  amongft  thofe  which  have 
been  urged  with  the  greateft  warmth  and  emphafis  againft  the 
treaty,  and  its  vindication  from  them,  if  fatisfaclory,  mud  go 
far  towards  fecuring  to  it  the  public  fufFrage.  Citizens  of  Ame- 
rica !  it  is  for  you  to  perform  your  part  of  the  talk,  it  is  for  you 
to  weigh  with  candour  the  arguments  which  have  been  iub- 
mitted  to  your  judgments;  to  confulr,  wit'iout  bias,  the  integrity 
of  your  hearts;  to  exile  prejudice  and  to  immolate  on  the  altar 
of  truth,  the  artifices  of  cabal  and  falfehood  !  There  can  then 
be  no  danger  that  patriotifm  will  have  to  lament,  or  national 
honor  toblufh  at,  the  fentence  which  you  fhall  pronounce. 

The  articles,  which  adjuft  the  matters  of  controverfy  between 
the  two  countries,  all  thofe  which  are  permanent,  have  now- 
been  reviewed.  Let  me  appeal  to  the  confeiences  of  thofe  who 
have  accompanied  me  in  the  review — if  thefe  articles  were  all 

defignating  it  by  inverted  commas)  a  paffage  reflecting  the  impreffingof  feamen, 
which  certainly  not  in  terms,  nor  even  in  fubftance,  u  4^n  fair  conftru&ion,  is  to 
be  found  in  any  thing  he  lias  written — Not  having  all  the  numbers  of  Cicero  at 
hand,  I  may  mi  flake,  in  attributing  to  him  the  principal  fentiment,  which  i* 
from  memory  hut   I   have  under  my  eye  the  number  which  witneiles  his  fw- 


36"  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXIII. 

that  compnfed  the  treaty,  would  it  be  the  better,  that  they 
fhould  exift — or  that  all  the  fources  of  rupture  and  war  with 
Great  Britain  fhould  have  furvived  the  negociation  to  extinguifh 
them,  and  fhould  ftill  actually  fubfift  in  full  vigour  ?  If  every 
enlightened  and  honest  man  muff,  prefer  the  former — then  let 
me  make  another  obfervation,  and  put  another  queition.  The 
remaining  articles  of  the  treaty,  which  conftitute  its  com- 
mercial part,  expire  by  their  own  limitation  at  the  end  of  twelve 
years.  It  is  in  the  power  of  either  party,  confiftently  with  the 
instrument,  to  terminate  them  at  the  end  of  the  expiration  of 
two  years  after  the  prefent  war  between  France  and  Great 
Britain. 

Is  it  at  all  probable  that  they  can  contain  any  thing  fo  inju- 
rious, confidenng  the  fhort  duration,  which  may  be  given  to 
them,  as  to  counterbalance  the  important  consideration  of  pre- 
ferving  peace  to  this  young  country  j  as  to  warrant  the  excef- 
five  clamours  which  have  beenraifed  :  as  to  authorize  the  hor- 
rid calumnies  which  are  vented;  and  to  juftify  the  fyftematic 
efforts  which  are  in  operation  to  convulfe  our  country  and  to 
hazard  even  civil  war?* 

CAMILLUS. 


No.  XXIII. 


TH  E  preceding  articles  having  adjusted  thofe  controversies 
which  threatened  an  open  rupture  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, it  remained  to  form  fuch  difpofitions  relative  to  theinter- 
courfe,  commerce,  and  navigation,  of  the  parties,  as  fhould 
appear  moft  likely  to  preferve  peace,  and  promote  their  mutual 
advantage. 

Thofe  who  have  confidered  with  attention  the  interests  of 
commerce,  will  agree  in  the  opinion,  that  its  utility,  as  well  as 
general  profperity,  would  be  mod  effectually  advanced  by  a  total 
abolition  of  the  restraints  and  regulations  with  which  the  jea- 
loufies  and  rival  policy  of  nations  have  embarraffed  it.  But 
though  we  are  not  chargeable  with  having  contributed  to  the 
eftabhfhment  of  thefe  errors,  fo  difcouraging  to  the  industry 
and  perplexing  in  the  intercourfe  of  nations,  we  found  them 
fo  deeply  rooted  and  fo  extensively  prevalent,  that  our  voice 

*  In  applying  the  character  of  difhonefty  and  turpitude  to  the  principle  of 
confifc.tion  or  fequeftration— I  am  far  from  intending  to  brand  as  difhoncft  men 
all  thofe  whofe  opinions  favour  it— I  know  there  are  fome  ardent  Spirits  charge- 
able with  the  error,  of  whofe  integrity  I  think  well. . 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXIIl.  37 

and  opinions  would  have  been  little  regarded,  had  we  expreffed 
a   defire  of  a  fyftem  more  liberal  and  advantageous  to  all. 

The  rights  of  commerce  among  nations  between  whom  exift 
no  treaties,  are  imperfect. 

"  The  law  of  nature,"  fays  Vattel,  'b.  I.  f.  89)  "  gives  to  no 
perfon  whatever,  the  lead  kind  of  right  to  fell  what  belongs  Hi 
him,  to  another  who  does  not  want  to  buy  it ;  nor  has  any  na- 
tion that  of  felling  its  commodities  or  merchandize  to  a  people 
who  are  unwilling  to  have  them.  Every  man  and  every  nation 
being  perfe&ly  at  liberty  to  buy  a  thing  that  is  to  be  fold,  or 
not  to  buy  it,  and  to  buy  it  of  one  rather  than  of  another." — 
"  Every  Hate  has  conftantly,"  continues  the  fame  author,  "  a  right 
to  prohibit  the  entrance  of  foreign  merchandize,  and  the  peo- 
ple who  are  interefted  in  this  prohibition  have  no  right  to  com- 
plain cf  it." btates  by  convention  may  turn  thefe  impericct 

into  perfect  rights,  and  thus  a  nation,  not  having  naturally  a 
perfect  right  to  carry  on  commerce  with  another,  may  acquire 
it  by  treaty.  A  fimple  permiffion  to  trade  with  a  nation,  gives 
no  perfect  right  to  that  trade  •,  it  may  be  carried  on  fo  long  as 
permitted  ;  but  the  nation  granting  fuch  permiffion  is  under 
no  obligation  to  continue  it.  A  perfect  right  in  one  nation  to 
carry  on  commerce  and  trade  with  another  nation  can  alone 
be  procured  by  treaty. 

From  the  precarious  nature  of  trade  between  nations,  as 
well  as  from  the  defire  of  obtaining  fpecial  advantages  and 
preferences  in  carrying  it  oil,  originated  the  earlieft  conventi- 
ons on  the  fubject  of  commerce.  The  firit  commercial  treaty 
that  placed  the  parties  on  a  more  fecure  and  better  footing  in 
their  dealings  with  each  other  than  cxifted  in  their  refpective 
intercourfe  with  other  nations,  infpired  others  with  a  defire 
to  eltablilh,  by  fimilar  treaties,  an  equally  advantageous  ar- 
rangement. Thus  one  treaty  was  followed  by  another,  until, 
as  was  the  cafe  when  the  United  States  became  an  independent 
power,  all  nations  had  entered  into  eXtenfive  and  complicated 
ftipulations,  concerning  their  navigation,  manufactures  and 
commerce. 

This  being  the  actual  condition  of  the  commercial  world, 
when  we  arrived  at  our  ftation  in  it,  the  like  inducements  to 
Tender  certain  that,  which,  by  the  law  of  nations,  was  preca- 
rious, and  to  participate  in  the  advantages  fecured  by  national 
agreements,  prompted  our  government  to  propofo  to  all,  and 
to  conclude  with  feveral,  of  the  European  nations,  treaties  of 
commerce. 

Immediately  after  the  coriclufion  of  the   wr\r,  congrefs  ap- 
pointed Mr.  Adams,  Doctor  Franklm,  and  Mr.  Jefferfcra,  joint 
Vol.  ill.  F 


38  Camillas— No.  XXIII. 

commiffioners,  to  propofe  and  conclude  commercial  treaties 
with  the  different  nations  of  Europe.  This  commiflion  was 
opened  at  Paris,  and  overtures  were  made  to  the  different 
powers  (including  Great  Britain)  through  their  minifters  redd- 
ing at  Paris.  The  bafis  of  thefe  numerous  treaties,  which 
congrefs  were  defirous  to  form,  was,  that  the  parties  fhouki 
refpe&ively  enjoy  tlie  rights  of  the  moil  favored  nations.  Va- 
rious anfwers  iy<  r<  given  by  the  foreign  miniflers,  in  behalf  of 
their  feveral  nations.  But  the  treaty  with.  Pruflia  was  the  only 
one  concluded,  of  the  very  great  number  propofed  by  the  Ame- 
rican commifiioners.  Mr.  Adams,  in  178^,  was  removed  to 
London,  Dr.  Franklin  foon  after  returned  to  America,  and 
Mr.  JelTerfon  fucceeded  him  as  minifter  at  Paris.  Thus  failed 
the  project  of  forming  commercial  treaties  with  almolt  every 
power  in  Europe.  Treaties  with  Ruilia,  Denmark,  Great 
Britain,  Spain  and  Portugal,  would  have  been  of  importance  ; 
but  the  fcheme  of  cx;ending  treaties  of  commerce  to  all  the 
minor  powers  of  Europe,  not  omitting  his  holinefs  the  pope, 
taaSj  it  muft  be  acknowledged,  fomewhat  chimerical,  and  could 
r.ot  fail  to  have  call  an  air  of  ridicule  on  the  commiffions  that 
with  great  folernnity  were   opened  at  Paris. 

The  imbecility  of  our  national  government,  under  the  arti- 
cles of  confederation,  was  underftood  abroad  as  well  as  at 
home  ;  and  the  opinions  of  characters  in  England,  moft  in- 
clined to  favor  an  extenfive  commercial  connexion  between  the 
two  countries,  were  underftood  to  have  been  oppofed  to  the  for- 
mation of  a  commercial  treaty  with  us;  fince,  from  the  defects 
of  our  articles  of  union,  we  were  fuppofed  to  be  deftitute  of  the 
power  requifue  to  enforce  the  execution  of  the  (tipulations  that 
fuch  a  treaty  might  contain. 

We  mull  all  remember  the  various  and  ill-digefted  laws  for 
the  rcg'.darion  of  commerce,  which  were  adopted  by  the  fe- 
veral  ftates  as  fubtlitutes  for  thofe  commercial  treaties,  in  the 
conclufion  of  which  cur  commilhoners  had  been  difappointed 
■ — the  embarrali'ments  which  proceeded  from  this  fource,  join- 
ed to  thofe  felt  from  the  derangement  of  the  national  treafury, 
were  the  immediate  caufe  which  aflembled  the  convention  at 
Philadelphia  in  1787.  The  refult  of  this  convention  was  the 
adoption  of  the  prefjnt  federal  conftitution,  the  legiflative  and 
executive  departments  of  which  each  poillfs  a  power  to  regu- 
late foreign  commerce;  the  former,  by  enacting  laws  for 
that  purpofc,  the  latter,  by  forming  commercial  treaties  with 
foreign  nation"}. 

The  opinion  heretofore  entertained  by  our  government,  re- 
ling  the  Utility  of  commercial  treaties,  is   not  equivocal; 


Ca  mill  us — No.  XXIII.  39 

and  it  is  probable  that  :hev  will,  in  future,  deem  it  expedient 
to  adjuft  their  foreign  trade  by  treaty,  in  preference  to  legiila- 
tive  provifions,  as  far  as  it  (hall  be  found  practicable,  on  terms 
of  reafonable  advantage.  In  the  formation  of  the  reiruLtions 
that  are  legislative,  being  ex  part;,  tl:c  intereft  of  thofe  w 
eitablifh  them  is  fccn  in  its  ftrongett  light,  while  that  of  the 
other  fide  is  rarely  allowed  its  juil  weight.  Pride  and  paflion 
too  frequently  add  their  influence  to  carry  thefe  regulations 
beyond  the  limits  of  moderation  :  reftraints  and  cxclulions,  on 
one  fide,  beget  reftraints  and  exclufions  on  the  other,  and  thefe 
retaliatory  laws  lead  to,  and  often  terminate  in,  open  war: 
While,  on  the  other  hand,  by  adj ailing  the  commercial  inter- 
courfe  of  nations  by  treaty,  the  pretenfions  of  the  parties  are 
candidly  examined,  and  the  refult  <u  the  difcuffion,  it  is  fair 
to  prefume,  as  well  from  the  experience  of  individuals  in  pri- 
vate affairs,  as  from  that  of  nations  in  their  more  important 
and  complicated  relations,  eftablifhes  thofe  regulations  which 
are  belt  fuited  to  the  interests  of  the  parties,  and  which  alone 
afford  that  liability  and  confidence  fo  effential  to  the  fuccefs  of 
commercial  enterprize. 

That  our  prefent  government  have  thought  a  commercial 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  would  be  advantageous,  is  evident, 
not  alone  from  the  fpecial  and  dillincl:  commiilion  given  to 
Mr.  Jay  to  form  one  ;  but  likewife  from  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Jefferfon  to  Mr.  Hammond,  of  the  29th  November,  1791, 
which  was  the  fir  ft  letter  to  that  minilter  after  his  arrival  ;  in 
which  the  executive  fays  :  "  with  refpect  to  the  commerce  of 
the  two  countries,  we  have  fuppofed  that  we  faw,  in  fevev.d  in- 
stances, regulations  on  the  part  of  your  government,  which, 
if  reciprocally  adopted,  would  materially  injure  the  intereits  .A 
loth  nations  ;  on  this  fubject  too,  I  mult  beg  the  favor  of 
you  to  fay,  whether  you  are  authorized  to  conclude  or  to 
negociate  arrangements  with  us;  which  may  fix  the  com- 
merce between  the  two  countries  on  principles  of  recipro- 
cal  advantage." 

Further,  from  the  fi r(t  felTion  of  ccngrefs,  to  that  during 
which  Mr.  Jay's  appointment  took  place,  efforts  were  made 
to  discriminate,  in  our  revenue  and  commercial  laws,  bsfwee'n 
thofe  nations  with  whom  we  had,  and  thofe  with  whom  we 
had  not,  commercial  treaties — The  avowed  object  of  which 
difcrimin  a'.ion  was,  to  place  the  latter  nations  on  a  lefs  advan- 
tageous commercial  footing  than  the  former,  in  order  to  induce 
them  likewife  to  form  commercial  treaties  with  us;  and  it  can- 
not be  forgotten  by  thofe,  who  affect  to  fuppofe  that  it  was 
not  expected  that  a  treaty  of  commerce   v.  ould  be  formed  by 


40  Ca MILL  us- No.  XXIII. 

Mr.   J.iy,  that   Mr.  Madi fan's  commercial  refolutions,  whicq 

were  under  confideration  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Jay's  appointment, 
grew  out  of,  and  were  built  upon,  a  claufe  of  Mr.  Jeflerfon's 
report  of  the  26th  December,  1793,  which  afievts  that  Great 
Britain  difcovercd  no  difpofition  to  enter  into  a  commercial 
treaty  with  us.  The  report  alluded  to  is  explicit  in  declaring  a 
preference  of  friendly  arrangements,  by  treaties  of  commerce, 
to  regulations  by  the  acts  of  our  legifiature,  and  authorizes  the 
inference,  under  which  the  commercial  refolutions  were  brought 
forward,  that  the  la'ter  fhould  be  refovted  to,  only  when  the 
former  cannot  be  effected. 

The  power  of  the  executive  to  form  commercial  treaties,  and 
the  objection  againlt  the  commercial  articles  before  us,  as  an  un- 
confiiiurionai  interference  with  the  legiflative  powers  of  con* 
grefs,  will,  in  the  fequel,  be  diftinctly  examined,  together  with 
other  objections  on  the  point  of  conftitutionality. 

Againit  the  policy  of  regulating  commerce  by  treaty,  rather 
than  by  acts  of  the  legifiature,  it  is  faid,  that  the  legiflative  acts 
can,  but  that  a  treaty  cannot,  be  repealed.  This  remark  is 
true,  and  of  weight  againft  the  formation  of  commercial  trea- 
ties which  are  to  be  of  long  duration,  or,  like  our  commercial 
treaty  with  France,  which  is  permanent.  For,  as  we  are  year- 
ly advancing  in  agriculture,  manufactories,  commerce,  naviga-r 
tion,  and  ftrength,  our  treaties  of  commerce,  efpecially  fuch 
as,  by  particular  ftipulations,  fhall  give  to  the  parties  other 
rights  than  thofe  of  the  molt  favored  nation,  ought  to  be  of 
fhort  duration,  that,  like  temporary  laws,  they  may,  at  an  early 
day,  expire  by  their  own  limitation,  leaving  the  intercfts  of 
the  parties  to  a  new  adjuftment,  founded  on  equity  and  mutual 
convenience. 

Of  this  defcription  are  the  commercial  articles  of  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain  •,  for  none  of  them  can  continue  in  force 
more  than  twelve  years  ;  and  they  may  all  expire,  if  either 
party  (hall  choofe  it,  at  the  end  of  two  years  after  the  peace 
between  France  and  Great  Britain. 

Did  the  limits  affigned  to  this  defence  admit  a  review  of  the 
commercial  and  maritime  codes  of  the  principal  European  na- 
tions, we  fhould  difcover  one  prevailing  feature  to  characterize 
them  all ;  we  fhould  fee  the  general  or  common  intereft  of 
nations,  every  where,  placed  in  a  fuhordinate  rank,  and  their 
feparate  advantage  adopted,  as  the  end  to  be  attained  by  their 
refpective  laws — Hence,  one  nation  lias  enacted  laws  to  pro- 
tect their  manufactures,  another  to  encourage  and  extend  their 
navigation,  a  third  to  monopolize  fome  important  branch  of 
trade,  and  all  have  contributed  tQ  the  creation  of  that  compli- 


Ca  mill  us — No.  XXIII.  «     41 

czted  fyftem  of  regulations  and  reftraints,  which  we  fee  eftabliih- 
ed  throughout  the  commercial  world. 

One  branch,  and  a  principal  one  of  this  fyftem,  that  which 
eftablifhes  the  connexion  between  the  feveral  European  nations 
and  their  colonies,  merits  our  particular  attention.  An  exncl: 
knowledge  of  this  connexion  would  aflift  us  in  f  juft 

eftimate  of  the  difficulties  that  (land  in  opnofition  to  our 
claim  of  free  and  full  participation  in  the  colony  trade  of 
Great  Britain. 

Unlike  the  plan  of  colonization  adopted  by  the  ancient  go* 
vernments,  who,  from  the  crouded  population  of  their  cities, 
fent  forth  and  eftabliflied  beneath  their  aufpices  new  and  inde- 
pendent republics,  the  colonies  of  modern  times  have  been 
planted  with  entirely  different  views  ;  re  t..iiied  in  a  ftaie  of  de- 
pendence on  the  parent  country,  their  connexion  has  been  made 
fubfervient  to  that  fpirit  of  monopoly,  which  lias  fhown  itfelf 
among  all  the  commercial  powers.  Every  European  nation  has 
its  colonics,  and  for  that  realbn  prohibited  all  foreigners  from 
trading  to  them. 

Important  political  events  arife  and  pafs  in  fuch  quick  fuc- 
ceilion,  that  we  are  liable  to  forget  facts  and  opinions  familiar 
to  us  in  periods  within  the  ordinary  powers  of  recollection. — 
No  fubjett   was  more  critically  examined,  or  generally  under- 
ftood  before  the  American  revolution,  than  that  which  refpedted 
the  connexion    between   Great  Britain    and   her  colonies!   all 
were  then  agreed,  that  the   colony  trade   and  navigation    were 
fubjecl  to  the  reftraints  and  regulations  of  the  parent  ftate.  It 
was  not  againft  this  dependence  and  commercial  monopoly  that 
the  colonies    complained  !    They    were    willing   to   fubmit   to 
them.  It   was  the  unjuft  attempt  to  tax  them,  to  raife  a  reve- 
nue from  them,  without  their  confent,  which   combined   that 
firm  and  fpirited  oppofition,  which  effected  a   divifton   of  the 
empire — thus  the  congrefs  of  1775,  in  their  laft  addrefs  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Great   Britain,  fay,  "  We  chearfully  content  to 
fuch  acts  of  the  Britith  parliament  as  mail  be  reftrained  to  the 
•    regulations  of  our  external  commerce,  for  the  purpofe  of  fecuring 
the  commercial  advantages  of  the  whole  empire  to  the  mother  cam- 
try,  and  the  commercial  benefit  of  its  refpe&ive  members!  ex- 
cluding every  idea  of  taxation  internal  or  external  for  the  pur- 
pofe of  raifing  a   revenue  on  the  fubjecls  in  America  without 
their  confent."  The  "  colonial  codes  of  other  nations  are  marked 
With  the  fame  fpirit  of  monopoly: — thus  Portugal  fliutsout  all 
foreigners  from  the  Brazils  as  well  as  from  her  Afiatic  po. 
ons,  Spain  from  South  America  and  her  ,We(t  India  iflands, 
France  excludes  all  foreigners  from  her  Afiatic  dominions,  and 


42  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXIII. 

limits  within  narrow  bounds  their  intercourfe  with  her  colonics 
in  the  Well  Indies.  Holland  guards,  with  the  mifer's  vigilance, 
the  accefs  to  her  fpice  iflands,  anil  imitates,  though  with  fome- 
what  lefs  rigour,  the  policy  of  the  other  powers  in  her  Weft 
India  poffeffions. — And  England,  by  her  act  of  navigation, 
which  has  been  in  operation  for  more  than  a  century,  afferted, 
and  hitherto  has  uniformly  adhered  to  the  like  fyftem  of  exclu- 
fion  and  monopoly. 

Notwitliftanding  the  intimate  alliance,  the  family  compact, 
between  France  and  Spain,  the  former  has  not  been  able  to 
procure  admiffion  into  the  Spanifh  colonial  territories  where 
fhe  might  have  acquired  immenfe  wealth  by  the  fale  of  her 
manufactures,  her  wines,  and  her  brandies. — Holland,  though 
a  part  of  the  Spanifh  monarchy  long  after  the  difcovery  of 
America,  and  the  eftablifhment  of  the  Spanifh  power  in  that 
quarter  of  the  world,  was  unable  after  her  feparation  from 
.Spain,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  her  independence,  even 
in  the  zenith  of  her  fplendid  power  upon  the  ocean,  to  obtain 
by  force  or  treaty  a  fhare  in  the  Spanifh  colony  trade  to  South 
America — The  rival  wars  between  the  Englifh  and  the  Dutch 
towards  the  clofe  of  the  laft  century,  which  originated  in  com- 
mercial competition  and  jealoufy,  were  fucceflively  terminated 
without  England  yielding  the  fmalleft  departure  from  the  ex- 
clufive  commercial  fyftem,  contained  in  her  act  of  naviga- 
tion. 

Great  Britain,  though  maintaining  her  exclufive  laws  againft 
other  nations  at  different  periods,  has  fhown  the  ftrongeft  de- 
fire  to  fhare  in  the  rich  trade  of  Spain  with  her  colonies — The 
war  that  commenced  in  1739,  was  occafioned  by  the  firm,  but 
irregular,  oppofition  of  Spain  to  the  contraband  efforts  of  the 
Britifh  traders. 

The  impediments  Great  Britain  has  uniformly  met  in  her 
attempts  to  extend  her  fettlement  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras, 
to  form  eftablifhments  at  Faulkland  Ifland,  and  more  recently 
at  Nootka  Sound,  afford  additional  proofs  of  the  fixed  policy  of 
Spain  on  the  fubjett  of  her  colony  trade. 

Portugal,  whole  political  fafety  more  than  once  has  appeared 
to  depend  on  the  efficacious  aid  of  Great  Britain,  does  not  yield 
to  her  ally  any  portion  of  her  valuable  colonial  commerce. 

So  uniform  and  perfevcring  has  been  the  practice  of  nations 
on  this  point,  that  in  the  lateft  treaties  of  commerce  between 
France  and  Spain,  between  each  of  thefe  powers  and  Great 
Britain,  between  Great  Britain,  Sweden,  Denmark,  Holland, 
and  Portugal,  we  do  not  difcover,  that  any  one  of  thefe  powers, 
has  confented  to  admit  the  others  to  a  participation  in  the  trade 


Cam  ill  us—  No.  XXIII.  43 

and  navigation  to  their  refpective  colonies — the  Affiento  con- 
tract for  the  fupply  of  negroes  to  the  Spanifh  colonies,  which 
has  been  made  by  Spain  with  feveral  powers,  is  an  unimport- 
ant and  folitary  exception  to  this  rule. 

Montefquieu  calls  this  law  appropriating  the  colony  com- 
merce to  the  benefit  of  the  parent  ftate,  "  A  fundamental  law 
of  Europe."  "  It  has  been  efbbliihed,"  fays  this  enlightened 
Frenchman, — "  That  the  metropolis  or  mother  country  alone 
(hall  trade  in  the  colonics,  and  that  for  very  good  reafuns;  be- 
caufe  the  defign  of  the  fettlement,  was  the  extension  of  com- 
merce, not  the  foundation  of  a  city  or  new  empire.  Thus  it 
is  (till  a  fundamental  law  of  Europe,  that  ail  commerce  with 
a  foreign  colony  (hall  be  regarded  as  a  mere  monopoly,  punifli- 
able  by  the  laws  of  the  country;  and  in  this  cafe  we  arc  net  to  be 
directed  by  the  laws  and  precedents  of  the  ancients,  which  are 
not  at  all  applicable." 

"  It  is  likewife  acknowledged  that  a  commerce  eftablifhed 
between  the  mother  countries,  does  not  include  a  permifiion  to 
trade  in  the  colonies ;  for  thefe  always  continue  in  a  ftate  of 
prohibition."  [Montefquieu,  Liv.  xxi.  chap,  xvii.] 

This  fubject  is  of  too  great  importance  not  to  be  purfued  a 
little  further.  Principles  connected  with  it,  and  fuch  as  will 
continue  to  operate  whether  we  fanction  or  condemn  them,  re- 
main to  be  difclofed.  It  is  true  that  the  principal  end  of  the 
dominion  that  the  European  powers  have  held  over  their  colo- 
nies, has  been  the  monopoly  of  their  commerce,  "  fince  in 
their  exclulive  trade  (as  has  been  obferved  by  a  fenfible  writer 
on  the  fubject)  confifts  the  principal  advantages  of  colonies, 
which  afford  neither  revenue  nor  force  for  the  defence  of  thu 
parent  country ;".  but  this  is  not  the  fole  object.  Some  nations, 
and  among  them  Great  Britain,  have  viewed  the  exclufive  na- 
vigation and  trade  to  their  colonies,  in  the  light  in  which  they 
have  feen  their  coafting  trade  and  fifheries ;  as  a  nurfery  for 
that  body  of  feamen,  whom  they  have  confidered  not  only  as 
neceflary  to  the  profperity  and  protection  of  commerce,  but  as 
cflential  to  the  defence  and  fafety  of  the  ftate. 

The  fituation  of  Great  Britain  in  this  reipect  is  peculiar  : 
when  compared  with  feveral  of  the  neighbouring  powers,  her 
numbers  and  military  forces  are  manifeitly  inferior.  The  armies 
kept  on  foot  in  peace,  as  well  3s  thofe  brought  into  the  field 
in  war,  by  the  great  nations  in  Europe,  are  fo  decidedly  lupe- 
rior  to  thofe  of  Great  Britain,  that  were  flic  a  continental 
power,  her  rivahwould  eafily  be  an  overmatch  for  her.  The 
ocean  is  her  fortification,  and  her  feamen  ak  ne  are  the  fol- 
diers  who  can  defend  it.  When  Great  Britain  {hall  become  an 


44  Camillas— No.  XXUI. 

inferior  maritime  power,  when  her  enemy  fhall  acquire  a  deci-* 
five  fuperiority  on  the  fea,  what  will  prevent  a  repetition  of 
thofe  conquefts  the  examples  of  which  we  find  in  her  early 
hiftory  ?  No  fubject  has  been  more  profoundly  thought  on  than 
this  has  been  in  Great  Britain.  Her  policy,  from  the  date  of 
her  navigation  act,  has  been  guided  by  thefe  confiderations — ' 
that  her  national  fafety  depends  on  her  wooden  walls,  is  a  max- 
im as  facred  in  Britain,  as  it  once  was  in  Athens.  Her  ftatef- 
men,  her  merchants,  her  manufacturers,  and  her  yeomanry, 
comprehend  and  believe  it. 

Is  it  then  furprifing,  that  we  fee  her  fo  anxious  to  encourage 
and  extend  her  navigation,  as  to  exclude  as  far  as  practicable, 
foreigners  from  any  (hare  of  her  fifheries,  her  coafting,  and  her 
colony  trade  ?  Does  not  candour  require  us  to  admit,  fince  her 
national  defence  refts  upon  her  navy,  which  again  depends  on 
her  feamen,  which  an  extenfive  navigation  can  alone  fupply, 
that  Great  Britain  having  more  to  rifk,  is  among  the  lalt 
powers  likely  to  break  in  upon  or  materially  to  felinquifh  that ' 
fyltem  of  exclufive  colony  trade,  that  has  fo  long  and  uniformly 
prevailed  among  the  great  colonizing  powers  ? 

America  has  her  opinions,  perhaps  prejudices,  on  the  fubje£fc 
of  commerce :  fhe  is,  and,  at  leatl  until  fhe  (hall  become  a 
naval  power,  will  continue  to  be,  without  colonies.  But  her 
laws  manifeft  a  fimilar  fpirit  with  thofe  of  other  nations,  in 
the  regulations  which  they  prefcribe  for  the  government  of  her 
fifheries  and  her  coafting  trade.  The  object  of  thefe  laws  is  an 
exclufion  of  foreign  competition,  in  order  to  encourage  and  in- 
creafe  her  own  navigation  and  feamen  ;  from  which  refources, 
not  only  in  wars  between  other  nations,  but  likewife  in  thofe  in 
which  fhe  may  be  engaged,  important  commercial  and  national 
advantages  may  be  expected.  Thefe  opinions  deferve  attention  ; 
they  have  already  had  and  will  continue  to  have  a  fuitable  in- 
fluence with  her  government.  But  we  ihould  remember,  that 
other  nations  have  likewife  their  opinions  and  prejudices  on  thefe 
fubj^cts  ;  opinions  and  prejudices  not  the  lefs  ftrong  or  deeply 
rooted  for  having  been  tranfmitted  to  them  through  a  feries  of 
pad  generations.  Thus  in  England,  not  only  the  public  opinion, 
"but  what  is  more  unconquerable,  the  private  interejls  of  many 
individuals  will  oppefe  every  change  in  the  exifting  laws  that 
nay  be  fuppofed  likely  to  diminish  their  navigation,  to  limit 
their  trade,  or  in  any  meafure  to  affect  difadvantageoufly  their 
pftablifhed  fyftem  of  national  commerce. 

It  cannot  have  efcaped  notice,  that  we  have  among  us  cha- 
racters who  are  unwilling  to  lec  (tated  the  impediments  that 
itand  in  of  the  commercial  arrangements,  which  they 


Oa  MILL  us — No.  XXiV,  4$ 

end,  fhcu'd  be  conceded  to  us  by  foreign  nations,  and  who 
are  ready  to  charge  thofe  who  faithfully  expofe  them,  with  an 
inclination  to  excufe  or  vindicate  the  unreasonable  denials  of 
our  commercial  rivals,  and  with  a  defire  toyieIduptliej.fi 
pretentions  of  our  country.  The  artifice  feems  too  grofs  to  be 
dangerous  with  a  fenfiblc  people,  but  the  public  fhouid  notwith- 
standing be  on  their  guard  again  ft  it. — They  lhould  difpaflion- 
atcly  examine  the  real  difficulties  to  be  encountered  in  the  form- 
ation of  our  commercial  treaties.  They  fhouid  enquire  and 
afcettain  how  far  other  nations,  feeking  the  fame  advantages, 
have  been  able  to  fucceed.  They  fhouid  further  compare  the 
treaty  in  quetlion  with  thofe  we  have  before  made  with  other 
nations. — the  refult  of  fuch  inveftigation  fo  far  from  warranting 
the  condemnation  of  the  commercial  articles  of  the  treaty  before 
us,  it  is  believed  would  demonflrate  that  thefe  articles  make  a 
wider  breach  in  the  Britifh  commercial  fyftem  than  has  ever 
before  been  made;  that  on  their  commercial  difpofitions  they 
are  preferable  to  any  treaty  we  have  before  concluded,  and  that 
there  is  rational  ground  to  believe  that  the  treaty  will  have  a 
tendency  friendly  to  the  agriculture,  the  commerce,  and  the 
navigation  of  our  country. 

CAMILLUS, 


No.    XXIV. 


HO  tV  E  V  E  R  uniform  may  have  been  the  law  of  Europe 
in  relation  to  their  colonial  eflabliihments,  no  pains  have 
been  fpared  to  create  an  opinion  that  France  has  been  guided  by 
a  more  liberal  policy  than  the  other  colonizing  powers,  and 
that  the  regulations  of  her  colony  trade  were  eflentially  diffimi* 
lar  from  theirs;  moreover  that  her  difintereflednefs  was  fo  great, 
that  (lie  not  long  fince  propofed  to  our  government  to  eftablifh 
by  treaty,  a  trade  between  us  and  her  Weft  India  colonies 
equally  free  with  that  which  prevails  in  her  own  intercourfe 
with  them.  The  object  of  thefe  attempts  is  readily  perceived. 

As  there  was  no  probability,  that  Great  Britain  would  con- 
fent  to  our  trading  with  her  Weft  India  colonies  on  the  fame 
lerms  as  fhe  herfelf  does,  as  it  was  forefeeri  that  limitations  and 
conditions  would  accompany  any  agreement  that  fhouid  be  made 
on  this  fubje^c  ;  to  extol  the  liberty  of  Fiance,  and  exclaim 
ag;  nit  the  monopolizing  view;  of  Great  Britain,  wore  deemed 
fait  ible  n  :.ins  to  ie  :  ."/  iiiift  the  expected  adj  ift- 

KVOL.    III.  -  G 


46  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXIV. 

ment  of  the  commercial  intercourfe  between  us  and  the  Britifli 
Weil  India  colonies. 

A  comparifcn  of  the  footing  by  which  our  trade  flood  with 
the  French  and  Britifh  Weft  India  colonies,  after  the  com- 
pletion of  our  revolution,  and  before  the  prefent  war  in  Eu- 
rope, with  a  concife  expofition  of  the  real  views  of  France  on 
the  fubjcct  of  a  new  commercial  treaty,  will  bed  demonitrate 
the  want  of  candor  and  patriotifm  in  thofe  Americans,  who 
have  fubmitted  to  become  agents  in  propagating  thefe  errors 

France,  like  England,  has  endeavoured  to  fecure  the  great eft 
pofllble  portion  of  advantage  to  herfelf,  by  her  colonial  laws, 
and  the  conceffions  yielded  to  foreigners  have  been  only  fuch 
deviations  from  an  entire  monopoly,  as  her  own  intereft  has 
rendered  inififpen fable — France,  in  imitation  of  the  Englifh  na- 
vigation law,  as  early  as  1727,  eftablifhed  an  ordinance,  con- 
firming to  the  mother  country  the  monopoly  of  the  trade  to 
her  10'onies,  and  excluding  thereby  all  foreigners — Experience 
proved  the  neceility  of  moderating  the  rigour  of  their  ordinance, 
and  relaxations  in  favor  of  a  limited  foreign  intercourfe  exifted 
at  the  time  when  our  commercial  treaty  with  France  was  con- 
cluded, by  the  thirtieth  article  of  which,  it  is  agreed,  that 
France  will  continue  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  the 
free  ports,  which  have  been  and  are  open  in  their  Weft  India 
iflands,  to  be  enjoyed  agreeable  to  the  regulations  which  relate 
to  them — A  fyflem  of  regulations  relative  to  the  trade  of  fo- 
reigners with  the  French  iflands,  was  promulgated  in  J  784: 
Tins  ordinance  eflablifhed  one  free  port  at  St.  Lucie,  another 
at  Martinique,  another  at  Gaudaloupe,  another  at  Tobago,  and 
three  others  at  St.  Domingo,  to  which  foreign  veiTels  of  the 
burthen  of  fixty  tons  and  upwards  might  carry  for  fa!e,  woods 
of  all  forts,  pit  coal,  live  animals,  fatted  beef,  faited  fifh,  rice, 
Indian  corn,  vegetables,  green  hides,  peltry,  turpentine,  and 
tar — This  was  followed  by  the  arrets  of  September,  1785, 
which  by  impofing  heavy  duties  on  foreign  faited  fifli,  and  efta- 
blifliing  large  bounties  on  thofe  of  the  national  or  French  fifh- 
ery,  materially  affected  the  foreign  commerce  with  the  French 
iflands  in  this  important  article  of  fupply  and  confumption. 

Such  were  the  duties  on  the  foreign,  and  the  premiums  on 
the  national  fid-,  that  together  they  would  have  been  equivalent 
to  a  prohibition  of  the  former,  had  the  national  fifhery  been 
able  to  fupply  tht-  confumption. 

In  return  for  thefe  articles  which  alone  were  permitted  to  be 
Imported  by  foreigners  into  the  French  iflands,  and  which  it 
will  be  obferved  excluded  fome  of  our  principal  ftaples  efpeci- 


Ca  mill  us— No.  XXIV.  47 

ally  fiour,  they  were  allowed  to  purchafe  and  bring  away  of  the 
productions  of  the  iflands,  only  melafTes  and  rum. 
t  All  cotton,  coffee,  fugar,  and  other  productions  (rum  and 
melafTes  excepted)  were  prohibited;  and  we  could,  except  oc- 
cr.fionally  by  local  relaxations  of  the  general  law,  rightfully 
obtain  none  of  them  from  the  French  Welt  India  iflands — 
This  was  the  footing  of  our  trade  under  our  treaty  and  the 
{landing  edict  which  preceded  the  French  revolution,  and  even 
this  was  hable  to  ft:ll  further  limitations,  whenever  France 
fliould  think  proper  to  impofe  them  ;  the  treaty  feeuring  only  a 
right  to  as  free  a  commerce  as  France  fliould  grant  to  other 
foreign  nations. 

Great  Britain  has  permitted  the  importation  info  her  Well 
India  colonies  of  all  the  foreign  articles,  allowed  by  France  to 
be  imported  into  her  iflands  (failed  fifh  and  falted  beef  ex- 
cepted) and  me  moreover  permitted  the  importation  of  foreign 
tobacco,  flour,  meal,  bifcuir,  wheat,  and  various  other  grains 
which  France  prohibited — In  return  for  thefe  commodities, 
Great  Britain  permitted  the  exportation  from  her  iflands  to  our 
country,  of  rum  and  melafTes,  and  moreover  of  fugar,  coffee, 
cocoa,  ginger,  and  pimento,  together  with  fuch  other  articles 
as  are  allowed  to  be  carried  from  their  iflands  to  any  other 
foreign  country. 

Great  Britain  prohibited  the  importation  and  exportation  of 
molt  of  thefe  articles  to  and  from  all  foreign  nations,  except  the 
United  States — France  permitted  the  intercourfe  with  her  colo- 
nies, under  the  fame  limitations  to  us  in  common  with  all  other 
foreign  nations. 

The  articles  received  from  us  by  Great  Britain,  for  the  fup- 
ply  of  her  Weft  India  iflands,  exceeded  in  variety  thole  re- 
ceived from  us  by  France  for  the  fupply  of  her  iflands,  the  Bri-* 
tiih  Welt  Indies  were,  therefore,  in  the  ordinary  and  eftablifhed 
courfe  more  extenfive  cuftomers  to  us  than  the  French  Welt 
Indies.  Again,  the  articles  which  we  received  from  the  Britifh: 
Weft  Indies  and  which  we  were  prohibited  from  receiving  from 
the  French  Weft  Indies,  were  among  the  molt  valuable  of  their 
productions,  and,  from  the  force  of  habit,  fome  ot  them  .ne 
included  in  the  catalogue  of  articles  of  the  firft  neceihty  in  our 
confumption.  In  point  of  fupply,  therefore,  the  Britifh  were 
better  furnilhers,  their  colonial  laws  being  much  lefs  reltrictive 
than  thofe  of  France. 

Though  the  regulations  of  the  Britifh  Weft  India  trade  were 
more  favorable  to  our  agriculture  than  thole  of  France,  and 
though  the  articles  wirti  which  we  were  fupplied  from  the  Bri- 
tifh illands  were  more  numerous  and  valuable  than  thofe  ob- 


48  Camillus—  No. 

tained  from  the  iflands  of  France,  the  colony  fyftem  or 
latter  was  preferable  to  that  ci  the  former  in  relation  to  our 
navigation.  France  permitted  our  veffels  of  and  above  lixty 
tons  burrhen,  to  carry  and  bring  away  the  articles,  no:  prohi- 
bited in  the  foreign  trade  with  her  iflands,  while  Great  Britain 
confined  the  trade  to  her  own  veflels  and  excluded  thofe  of  at! 
foreign  nations. 

Difference  of  fituation,  and  not  of  principle,  produced  this 
var.ety  or  diftinclion  in  the  colony  fyftem  of  the  two  nati< 
France  being  able  from  her  refources  to  fupply  moll  of  the 
articles  requifite  for  the  confumption  of  her  Weft  Indies,  and 
from  her  great  population,  having  a  proportionate  demand  for 
the  productions  of  her  iflands,  fhe  has  been  carefully  reflnclive 
in  the  trade  between  her  colonies  and  foreign  countries  as  to  the 
articles  of  import  and  export. 

All  the  productions  of  her  iflands,  muft  go  to  the  mother 
country,  except  rum  and  melafles  ;  thefe  articles  were  not  coiir 
fined  to  France,  beeaufe  they  would  have  diretlly  interfered 
•with  the  valuable  manufacture  of  her  brandies.  On  the  other 
hand,  Great  Britain,  being  lefs  able  from  her  internal  refources 
to  fupply  the  articles  neceiTary  for  the  confumption  of  her 
"Weft  Indies,  and  her  population,  or  home  demand  not  requir- 
ing the  whole  productions  of  her  iflands,  fhe  has  been  more 
liberal  in  the  trade  allowed  to  be  carried  on  between  her  colo- 
nies and  foreign  countries  as  to  the  articles  of  import  and  export. 
But  her  navigation  being  adequate  to  the  whole  trade  of  all  her 
dominions,  while  that  of  France  required  the  addition  of  fo- 
reign bottoms,  Great  Britain  has  excluded  entirely  from  her 
colony  trade  the  foreign  velTels  of  all  nations,  while  France  has 
admitted  them  to  fhare  in  the  foreign  trade  permitted  to  her 
Weft  India  iflands. 

Both  France  and  Great  Britain  relax  their  colonial  laws,  in 
times  of  occafional  fcarcity  and  when  they  are  engaged  in  war  $ 
during  which,  the  intercourfe  with  their  Weft  India  pofleffions 
is  laid  mere  open  to  foreigners.  The  catalogue  of  fupplies  is 
fometimes  enlarged,  and  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  France, 
during  thefe  relaxations}  permits  American  velTels  to  refort  to, 
and  engage  in  the  commerce  of,  their  iflands. 

Jt  is  notwithflanding  from  the  permanent  laws  alone  of  thefe 
nations,  that  we.  are  able  to  infer  their  views  in  relation  to  their 
colony  trade  !  the  exceptions  and  deviations  that  become  necef- 
iary by  reafon  of  accidental  fcarcity  or  the  embarrafiments  of 
war,  ferve  only  to  explain  mere  clearly  the  principles  of  the 
permanent  fyftem. 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXIV.  49 

The  refult  of  this  companion  affords  no  fupport  for  theaffer- 
tion  rhat  France  has  been  Jefs  exclufive,  or  more  liberal  in  her 
colony  fyftem,  than  Great  Britain — both  thefe  nations  have  in 
the  eftablifhment  of  their  colonial  laws  alike  difregarded  the 
interelts  of  foreign  nations,  and  have  been  equally  under  the 
controul  of  the  principles  cf  felf-intereft,  which  ever  have,  and 
ever  will  govern  the  affairs  of  nations.*       • 

Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous,  than  the  opinion  that  any 
nation  is  likely  to  yield  up  its  own  intereft,  in  order,  gratuitoufly, 
to  advance  that  of  another.  Yet  we  frequently  hear  declarations 
of  this  kind,  and  too  many  honeft  citizens  have  furrendered 
ihemfelves  to  this  delufion — Time  and  experience  will  cure  us 
of  this  folly. 

Equal  artifice  has  been  practifed,  and  no  lefs  credulity  dis- 
played, on  the  fubject  of  a  new  treaty  of  commerce,  which  it 
is  boldly  aliened,  France  from  rhc  molt  diftnterefled  motives 
has  offered  to  us.  It  ihould  be  recolle&ed  that  France  already 
has  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  us,  a  treaty  that  is  not  limited 
to  two  years,  nor  twelve  years,  but  one  that  is  to  endure  for 
ever — This  treaty  is  as  favorable  to  Prance  as  lh.e  can  defire,  or 
we  in  our  utmoft  fondnefs  be  dif]  ifed  to  make — It  fecures  to 
her  our  acquiefcence  in  an  exclufion  from  her  Aliatic  dominions, 
and  in  frelh  regulations  as  her  intereft  fliafl  dictate  relative  to 
our  intercourfe  with  her  Welt  India  poffi  ilions — It  excludes  us 
from  her  fiflieries  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland,  which  fhe 
was  unwilling  to  ftiare  with  us,  and  ir  gives  to  her  every  com- 
mercial favor  or  privilege  which  by  treaty  we  may  yield  to  any 
other  nation,  freely  when  freely  granted,  and  when  otherwife 
on  yielding  the  fame  equivalent — her  productions,  her  manu- 
factures, her  merchandizes,  and  her  fhips  may  come  into  all 
our  ports  to  which  any  other  foreign  productions,  manufac- 
tures, merchandizes,  or  fhips  may  come — they  ate  feverally  to 
pay  only  the  loweji  duties  paid  bv  any  other  nation,  and  no  other 
nation  in  its  intercourfe  and  trade  with  us,  is,  in  any  inltance, 
to  have  a  preference  over  her — A  variety  of  other  regulations 
are  inferted  in  this  treaty  ufeful  to  France  and  not  particularly 
differviceable  to  us. 

This  treaty  has  been  religioufly  obferved  and  executed  o\\  our 
part;  France  has  repeatedly  violated  it  in  the  article  which 
makes  enemy  goods  free  in  neutral  bottoms,  while  it  is  under- 

*  The  opinion  heretofore  cited  of  M"~t'f.juicuy  a  Frenchman,  agreeing-  with 
fuels,  is  a  pofitive  teiliniory  that  the  principle  of  the  French  fyftem,  like  th2 
t^glifh,  \%  monopoly. 


So  Camilla—  No.  XXIV. 

Hood  (he  has   faithfully  obfcrved  it  in   the  article,  that  makes 
neutral  goods  lawful  prize  when  found  in  enemy  bottoms. 

If  it  be  true,  that  nations  in  jultice  to  thcmfelves  are  bound 
to  decline  the  abandonment  of  their  own  intereft,  for  the  pur- 
pofe  of  promoting  at  their  own  expenfe  and  detriment,  the 
intereft  of  others,  ought  we  too  readily  to  credit  an  oppofite 
opinion?  Ought  we  not  to  expect  full  proof  of  the  fmcerity  of 
thofe  declarations,  that  are  intended  to  produce  a  belief  of  this 
difinterefted  and  (elf-denying  courfe  ?  Ought  not  the  very  pro- 
pofal  of  fuch  a  meafure,  from  its  extraordinary  nature,  infpire 
circumfpection,  and  put  a  prudent  nation  on  its  guard  ?  If 
moreover,  the  overture  mould  occur  at  a  moment  when  we  are 
afcertained  that  thofe  who  make  it,  defire,  and  are,  in  fact, 
purfuing  objects  incompatible  with  the  difintereftednefs  which 
it  avows  ?  If  while  it  is  faid  we  with  that  you  fhould  remain  in 
peace  with  thofe  who  hold  this  language,  neglect  no  means  to 
engage  our  citizens  to  violate  their  neutral  duties  and  thereby 
expofe  their  country  to  war;  if  when  we  are  told  "  we  rejoice 
in  the  freedom  of  a  filter  republic,"  all  the  arts  of  intrigue,  fo 
much  more  dangerous  by  our  unfufpicious  temper,  and  unli- 
mited affection  for  thofe  who  practife  them,  were  employed  to 
alienate  our  attachment  from  our  own  government,  and  to 
throw  us  into  a  ftate  of  anarchy  ;  if  when  the  facinating  propo- 
fal  of  opening  new  channels  of  commerce,  which  were  to  give 
unbounded  riches  to  our  merchants  was  received  with  more  cau- 
tion than  was  deli  red,  we  are  told  that  in  cafe  of  refufal,  or 
evafion  (mark  the  generofity)  France  would  repeal  her  exitting 
laws  which  had  been  dictated  by  an  attachment  to  the  Ame- 
ricans. What  mud  have  been  our  infatuation,  what  the  meafure 
of  our  folly,  had  we  given  implicit  credit  to  words  fo  much  at 
variance  with  cotemporary  actions  ?  But  it  is  aiked,  do  not  the 
letters  of  Mr.  Genet  to  Mr.  Jefferfon,  which  have  been  pub- 
lished, prove  that  France  defired  and  offered  to  enter  into  a  new 
difinterefted  and  liberal  treaty  of  commerce  with  us :  The  que- 
ftion  fhall  be  fairly  examined. 

There  are  two  letters  from  Mr.  Genet  on  this  fubject — Imme- 
diately after  his  arrival  at  Philadelphia,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Jeffer- 
fon of  the  23d  May,  1 793,  he  fays — "  The  French  republic  has 
given  it  in  charge  to  me  to  propofe  to  your  government  to  con- 
fecratc  by  a  true  family  compact,. by  a  national  covenant,  the 
liberal  and  fraternal  bafis,  on  which  it  wifhes  to  eftablifh  the 
commercial  and  political  fyftem  of  two  people,  whofe  interefls 
are  infepara'oly  connected." 

If  the  object  of  this  propofal  was  a  revifion  of  our  commer- 
cial treaty,  in  order  to  render  the  intercourfe  between  us  more 


Ca MILL  us — No.  XXIV.  51 

free  and  advantageous,  this  minrfter  was  Angularly  unfortunate 
in  his  exprdlions — He  might  have  employed  the  fine  phrafe  of 
confecrating  by  a  true  family  compact,  by  a  national  covenant, 
the  liberal  and  fraternal  bnfis  on  which  it  was  wifhed  to  efta- 
blifli  the  commercial  fyftem  of  the  two  countries,  and  have  been 
intelligible  ;  but  when  he  tells  us,  that  he  is  inftructed  to  open 
a  negotiation  with  our  government,  for  the  purpofe  of  eftablifh- 
ing  the  commercial  and  political  fyftem  of  the  two  countries, 
what  are  we  to  underftand  ?  That  trade  and  its  regulations  are 
alone  in  view?  Or  that  a  family  compact  eftablifhing  the  poli- 
tical, as  well  as  the  commercial  fyftem  of  the  two  nations, 
muit  include  likewife  the  league  cr  treaty  of  alliance,  whereby 
the  ftrength  and  wealth  of  the  two  nations,  (bould  be  clofefy 
united  in  the  profecution  of  a  common  object  ? 

This  ambiguous  overture,  if  its  meaning  is  not  too  plain  to 
allow  the  epithet,  was  received  in  the  mod  friendly  manner  by 
our  government,  and  on  the  fuggeftion  that  the  fen  ate  are 
united  with  the  prtfident  in  making  treaties,  it  was  underflood 
between  Mr.  JeiTerfon  and  Mr.  Genet,  that  the  fubjeCt  fliould 
be  deferred  till  the  meeting  of  congrefs. 

Before  that  period,  however,  Mr.  Genet,  in  a  letter  of  the 
30th  of  September,  1  793,  renews  the  propefal  to  open  the  ne- 
gotiation relative  to  the  propofed  family  compact  between  us 
and  France  ;  and  proves  to  us  that  our  benefit  was  its  principal 
exclufive  object,  by  affectionately  intimating  in  the  conclufion, 
of  his  letter,  that  he  is  further  inftructed  to  tell  us,  in  cafc  of 
rcfufal  or  evafion  on  our  part  to  enter  into  this  family  agree- 
ment, that  France  will  repeal  the  laws  dictated  by  the  attach- 
ment of  the  French  for  the  Americans. 

Had  it  before  been  doubted  whether  political  engagements 
relative  to  war,  were  intended  to  be  connected  with  the  pro- 
pofed treaty,  thefe  doubts  muft  have  difappeared  on  the  receipt 
of  this  fecond  letter  from  Mr.  Genet;  the  intimation  that  the 
laws  of  France  which  operated  favorably  to  our  trade  with 
their  dominions,  would  be  repealed,  in  cafe  we  refufed  or 
evaded  the  conclufion  of  a  new  treaty,  cannot  be  reconciled, 
with  the  belief,  that  this  treaty  was  fought  for  from  motives 
purely  commercial,  or  folely  to  enlarge  and  add  profperity  to 
our  trade. 

Mr.  Genet  at  this  time  had  (n  outraged  cur  government  afl 
to  have  compelled  them  to  requcft  his  recall,  he  mud,  rhere- 
f  re,  have  been  convinced,  that  no  conference  would  be  held 
with  him  except  on  points  of  urgent  importance,  and  fuch  as 
would  not  admit  of  delay — He  was,  therefore,  anfwered  by 
My.  Jefferfon  on  the  5th  of  November,  that  his  'otter  had  been 


52  Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXIV. 

laid  before  the  president,  and  would  be  confidered  with  all  the 
refpeel  and  intereft  that  its  objitls  neceflarily  required  ;  and  in 
Mr.  Jefferfon's  letter  to  Mr  Morris  of  the  23d  of  Auguft,  we 
are  informed  that  our  government  were  defirous  to  go  into  a 
commercial  negociation  with  France,  and,  therefore,  requested 
that  the  powers  given  to  Mr.  Genet  on  that  fubjecl  ffiould 
be  renewed  to  his  fucceflbr — It  has  not  appeared  that  this  was 
ever  done — His  immediate  fucceflbr,  Mr.  Fauchct,  it  is  be- 
lieved, gave  no  evidence  of  his  having  any  powers  relative  to  a 
commercial  treaty  ;  and  if  reports,  which  arrived  with  the  prc- 
fent  minilter,  having  great  marks  of  authenticity,  may  be  cre- 
dited, he  h:i^  power  only  to  digejl  the  articles  of  fuch  a  treaty, 
not  to  conclude  one. 

Notwithstanding  the  internal  evidence  contained  in  the  two 
letters  of  Mr.  Genet  was  fuffictent  to  have  fatisfied  a  fenfible 
people,  that  fomething  beyond  a  commercial  treaty  was  con- 
nected with  the  proffered  negociation,  and  though  this  con- 
jecture acquired  ttrength  from  the  cautious  procedure  of  our 
government  on  the  occafion  :  yet  thefe  letters,  and  that  proce- 
dure, have  been  prefTed  upon  the  public  as  conclufive  evidence, 
that  France  had  offered,  and  our  government  refufed,  to  enter 
into  a  new  treaty  of  commerce,  that  would  have  been  highly 
beneficial  to  our  trade  and  navigation. 

The  refutation  of  this  opinion  fo  injurious  to  a  reafonable 
and  falutary  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  patriotifm  of  our 
own  executive  government,  and  which  the  agents  of  its  propa- 
gation, had  fpread  far  and  wide,  might  have  been  more  diffi- 
cult, had  not  the  miniiter  of  France  for  the  purpofe  of  juitify- 
ing  his  own  conduct,   publifhed  his  hitherto  fecret  inftructions. 

By  thefe  inft ructions  it  appears,  that  the  effential  object  of 
this  proffered  negociation,  was  to  engage  the  United  States  to 
make  common  caufe  with  France  in  the  war  then  forefeen,  and 
which  foon  broke  out  with  Spain  and  England—  That  the  advan- 
tages to  be  yielded  by  a  new  commercial  treaty  were  to  be  pur- 
chafed  by  our  uniting  with  France  in  extending  the  empire  oj 
liberty,  in  breaking  up  the  colonial  and  mcnop'sliziug-fyjlejiis  of  all 
nations ,  and  finally  in  the  emancipation  of  the  new  world* — Fhi( 
was  laying  out  a  large  and  difficult  work,  in  the  accomplishment 
whereof  arduous  and  numerous  perils  mud  be  met,  to  en- 
counter which  we  were  called  by  no  obligation  to  others,  to 
avoid  which  we  were  admonilhed  by  all  the  duties   which  re- 

*  This  iv   &  fcheme,  the  joining  in  which  was  to  be  the  price  of  the  proffered 

nee  herfelf  as  a  political  chimera. 


Camillus — No.  XXIV.  eg 

quire  us  to  cherifh  and  preferve  our  own  unparalleled  freedom  $ 
profperity  and  happinefs. 

However  contradictory  this  extraordinary  project  may  appear 
to  the  friendly  communications  that  had  been  made  by  the 
French  government  to  ours,  however  repugnant  to  the  fuothing 
declarations  pronounced  by  Mr.  Genet,  of  the  fraternal  and 
generous  fentiments  of  his  country  towards  ours,  and  of  the 
republican  franknefs  and  fincerity  that  mould  chnracterife  his 
deportment ; — let  the  following  extracts  from  his  inftructions 
publilhed  by  himfelf  in  December,  1793,  be  confulted  in  con- 
firmation of  this  ftatement,  and  as  an  authentic  exposition  of 
the  genuine  views  of  the  French  executive  council  in  the  mil- 
lion of  Mr.  Genet — viz. 

"  The  executive  council  have  examined  the  inftructions  given 
to  the  predeceflbrs  of  the  citizen  Genet  in  America,  and  they 
have  feen  with  indignation,  that  while  the  good  people  of  Ame- 
rica have  exprcjpd  to  us  their  gratitude  in  the  mojl  lively  manner ', 
and  given  us  every  te/limony  of  their  friend/hip,  both  Vcrgen  nes 
and  Montmorin  have  thought  that  the  interefts  of  France  re- 
quired, that  the  United  States  Jhould  not  obtain  that  political 
order  and  confiflency  of  which  they  were  capable,  becaufe  they 
would  thereby  quickly  attain  a  itrength,  which  they  might  pro-* 
bablv  be  inclined  to  abufe.  Thefe  minifters,  therefore,  enjoined 
it  upon  the  reprefentatives  of  Louis  XVI.  in  America,  to  hold 
a  paflive  conduct,  and  to  fpeak  only  of  the  pcrfonal  vows  of 
the  king  for  the  profperity  of  the  United  States.  The  fame 
machiavelifm  directed  the  operations  of  the  war  of  indepen- 
dence, the  fame  duplicity  prefided  in  the  negociations  of  the 
peace.  The  deputies  of  congrefs  had  expreffed  a  defire  that 
the  cabinet  of  Verfailles  fhould  favor  the  conquefls  of  the  Flo- 
ridas,  of  Canada,  of  Nova  Scotia  :  but  Louis  and  his  miniiters 
conftantly  refufed  their  countenance — regarding  the  poffellion 
of  thofe  countries  by  Spain  and  England,  as  ufeful  fources  of 
dilquietude  and  anxiety  to  the  Americans." 

After  declaring  that  the  executive  council  propofes  to  itfelf  a 
different  courfe,  and  that  it  approves  of  the  overtures,  which  had 
been  made  as  well  by  General  Wafhington,  as  by  Mr.  Jefferfon, 
to  Mr.  Ternant,  relative  to  the  means  of  renewing  and  confo- 
lidating  the  commercial  regulations  between  the  two  countries, 
they  proceed  to  declare  further  "  that  they  are  inclined  to  ex- 
tend the  latitude  of  the  propofed  commercial  treaty  (obferve,  the 
firlt  propofal  of  a  new  commercial  treaty  came  from  us,  and 
not  from  France)  by  converting  it  into  a  national  compact, 
whereby  the  two  people  mould  combine  their  commercial  with 
their  political  interejls,  and  mould  eltabhih  an  intimate  concert 

Vol.  III.  H 


54  Cam  ill  us—No.  XXI V*. 

to  befriend,  under  all  circumdances,  the  extenuon  of  the  empire 
of  liberty,  to  guarantee  the  fovereignty   of  the   people,  and  to 
punifh  the   nations  who  fhall  continue  to  adhere  to  a  colonial 
fyftem,  and  an  exclufive  commerce,  by  declaring  that  the  vef- 
fels  of  fuch  nations  fliould  not  be  received  into  the  ports  of  the 
two  contracting  parties.  This  agreement  which  the  Ftench  peo- 
ple  will   fupport   with   all  the  energy  that  diftinguifhes  them, 
and  of  which  they  have  given  fo  many  proofs,  will  quickly  con- 
tribute to    the  emancipation  of  the   new  world.    However  vail 
this  project  may   appear,  it  will  be  eafily  accomplished,  if  the 
Americans  will  concur  in  it,  and  in  order  to  convince  them  of 
this,  no  pains  mud  be  fpared  by  the  Citizen  Genet.  For  inde- 
pendent of  the  benefits  that  humanity  will  draw  from  the  fuc- 
cefs  of  this  ncgociation — France,  at  this  moment,  has  a  parti- 
cular intereft  that  requires  us  to  be  prepared  to  act  with  elficacy 
againd  England  and  Spain,  if,  as  every  circumllance  announces, 
thefe  powers,  in  hatred  of  our  principles,  (ball  make  war  upon 
us."  In  this  date  of  things,  we  ought  "  to  employ  every  means 
to  re-animate  the  zeal  of  the  Americans,  who  are  alfo  intered- 
ed  that  we  fhould  difappoint  the  liberticide  defigns  of  George 
the  third,  of  which  they  likewife  may  poffibly  be  an   object.'' 
"  The  executive   council  has  reafon  to   believe,  that  thefe  re- 
flections, yc/wo/  to  the  great  commercial  advantages,  which  we  arc 
difpofed  to  grant  to  the  United  States,  will  decide  their  govern- 
ment to   agree   to   all   that  the  Citizen  >  Genet  fhall  propofe  to 
them  on  our  part — But  as  from   the  rumours   refpecting  our 
interior,  our  finances,  and  our  marine,  the  American  admintjlra- 
tion   may    obferve    a  wavering  timid  conduct:  !  The  executive 
council,  in    expectation   that    the   American    government  will 
finally   decide,  to  make  common  caufe   with   us,  charges  the 
Citizen  Genet  to  take  fuch  deps  as  fhall  be  mod  likely  to  ferve 
the  caufe  of  liberty  and  the  freedom  of  the  people." 

In  a  fupplemental  indruction,  the  executive  council  fay,  "  as 
foon  as  the  negociation  concerning  a  new  treaty  of  commerce 
ihall  be  practicable,  Citizen  Genet  mud  not  omit  to  dipulate 
a  pofitive  reciprocity  of  the  exemption  from  the  American  ton- 
nage duty."  The  mutual  naturalization  of  French  and  Ameri* 
can  citizens,  fo  far  as  reflects  commerce,  that  has  been 
propofrd  by  Mr.  Jefferfon  and  approved  by  the  executive  coun- 
cil (this  it  is  prelumcd,  in  the  eyes  of  certain  characters,  would 
be  free  from  objection,  though  the  naturalization  by  treaty,  of 
the  fubjects  of  any  nation  but  France,  would  be  treafon  againft 
the  conditution  and  againd  liberty)  "  will  render  this  exemp- 
tion from  the  tonnage  duties  lefs  ofFenfive  to  the  powers  who 
have  a  right  by  their  treaties  to  claim  the  fame  exemption,  for 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXIV.  55 

the  cafus  foederis  by  this  mutual  naturalization  will  be  entirely 
changed  in  refpect  to  them — The  reciprocal  guarantee  of  the  pof- 
feffions,  of  the  two  nations,  ftipulated  in  the  Xlth  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1778,  muft  form  an  efTential  claufc  in  the  new  treaty 
to  be  concluded  !  The  executive  council,  therefore,  inltructs 
Citizen  Genet  early  to  found  the  American  government  on  this 
point,  and  to  make  it  an  indifpenfable  condition  of  a  free  trade  to 
the  French  Weft  Indies,  fo  interefting  for  the  United  States  to 
obtain.  It  concerns  the  peace  and  profperity  of  the  French  na- 
tion, that  a  people  whofe  refources  and  Strength  increafe  in  a 
ratio  incalculable,  and  who  are  placed  fo  near  to  our  rich  colo- 
nies, fliould  be  held  by  explicit  engagements  to  the  prefervation 
of  thefe  iflands — There  will  be  the  Ids  difficulty  in  making 
thefe  proportions  re.hfhed  by  the  United  States,  as  the  great 
commerce  which  will  be  their  price,  will  indemnify  them  be- 
fore hand  for  the  Sacrifices  they  muft  make  in  the  fequel — 
Befides,  the  Americans  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  great  difpro- 
portion  between  their  means  and  thofe  of  the  French  republic! 
that  for  a  long  time  the  guarantee  will  be  merely  nominal  for 
them,  while  it  will  be  real  on  the  fide  of  France.  And  more- 
over that  we  fhall,  without  delay,  take  meafures  to  fulfil  it  on 
our  part,  by  fending  to  the  American  pofts,  a  force  fufficient  to 
flicker  them  from  all  infults  and  dangers,  and  to  facilitate  their 
intercourfe  with  our  iilands  and  with  France" — "  and  to  the 
end  that  nothing  may  retard  the  conclufion  of  the  negociations 
of  Citizen  Genet  with  the  Americans,  and  that  he  may  have 
in  his  hands  all  the  means  which  may  be  employed  in  forward- 
ing the  fuccefs  of  his  exertions  to  fcrve  the  caufe  of  liberty,  the 
council,  in  addition  to  the  full  powers  hereunto  annexed,  has 
authorized  the  minifter  of  marine  to  fupply  him  with  a  number 
of  blank  letters  of  marque,  to  be  delivered  to  fuch  Frenchmen 
or  Americans,  as  fliould  equip  privateers  in  America — the  mi- 
nifter of  war  will  likewife  fupply  him  with  commiilions  in  blank 
for  the  different  grades  in  the  army."* 

Thefe  were  extraordinary  means  to  enable  the  French  mini- 
fter to  conclude  with  our  government  a  pacific  treaty  of  com- 
merce. The  above  extracts,  though  not  an  entire  tranllation  of 
the  whole  of  Mr.  Genet's  inftructions,  many  parts  of  which 
are  foreign  to  the  point  in  difcuffion,  are  a  faithful  abltracf.  of 
fuch  parts  of  them,  as  relate  to  the  principles  and   conduct  of 


*  This  meafure  countenances  3  concluiion,  that  it  was  the  intent  of  the  in- 
Itmetious,  he  fliould  take  the  meafures  he  did  with  regard  to  priva'cering  and 
military  expeditions  from  our  territories,  to  force  us  into  the  war  in  fpite  of  tr.c 
"  wavering  and  timid  conduct  of  our  adminiftratiorj." 


5*  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXV. 

the  French  monarchy  towards  us,  and  are  as  explanatory  of 
the  views  of  the  executive  council  on  the  fubject  ot  a  new- 
treaty  of  commerce — it  will,  1  think,  prove,  if  the  afl'ert.ons 
of  that  council  are  to  be  credited,  that  the  gratitude,  of  which 
we  have  henrd  fo  much,  ought  not  to  be  demanded  en  account  of 
the  principles  that  influenced  the  monaichy  of  France  during  our 
war,  or  fubfequent  to  the  peace — and  furthermore  it  \*  ill  pr-  ve 
that  the  real  view  of  the  French  executive  council  in  the  mifli- 
on  of  Mr.  Genet,  was  to  engage  us  by  advantages  to  be  conceded 
in  anew  commercial  treaty,  to  make  common  caufe  with  France, 
in  the  expecled  war  with  Great  Britain  and  the  coalefced  pow- 
ers. If  then  the  eltabliihed  footing  of  our  trade  with  the 
French  Weft  Indies,  like  that  of  our  trade  with  the  Britifli 
iflands,  has  been  dictated  by  that  colonial  fyltem  of  monopoly, 
which  forms  a  fundamental  law  in  Europe — and  if  moreover 
the  opinion  that  we  could  have  piocured  a  new  and  more  liberal 
treaty  of  commerce  with  France,  without  plunging  our  coun- 
try in  the  preient  war,  is  an  error,  that  has  been  artfully  im- 
pofed  on  the  public — by  expofing  thefe  truths,  the  examination 
ot  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  is  at  once  freed  from  the  ob- 
jections and  afperfions  that  have  proceeded  from  thefe  errors. 

CAM  ILL  US. 


No.  XXV. 


IT  will  be  ufeful,  as  it  will  fimplify  the  examination  of  the 
commercial  articles  of  the  treaty,  to  bear  in  mind  and  pre- 
ferve  the  divifion,  that  we  find  eftabhfhed  by  the  12th,  13th, 
ami  the  14th  and  15th  articles;  each  refpe£ts  a  particular 
branch  or  portion  of  the  trade  between  the  two  countries,  the 
regulations  whereof  differ  from,  and  are  feverally  independent 
of,  each  other — Thus  one  is  relative  to  the  Weft  Indies — ano- 
ther to  the  Eaft  Indies — and  the  third,  diftincl  from  both  the 
former,  refpecls  our  trade  with  the  Britifti  dominions  in  Eu- 
rope. 

That  Great  Britain  will  confent  to  place  our  trade  with  her 
Weft  India  colonies  upon  an  equally  advantageous  footing  with 
her  own,  is  improbable;  this  would  be  doing  what  none  of  the 
great  colonizing  nations  has  done,  or  is  likely  to  do — it  would 
be  to  relinquifh  the  principal  ends  of  the  eftablifhment,  and 
defence  of  her  colonies;  it  would  be  equivalent  to  making  her 
iflands  in  the  Weft  Indies  the  common  property  of  Great  Bii- 


Camillus — No.  XXV.  57 

tain  and  America  for  all  commercial  and  profitable  purpofes; 
and  exclusively  her  own  in  the  burden  of  fupport  and   defence. 

The  fenate  have,  however,  and,  I  chink,  wifely,  considered 
the  terms  and  conditions,  on  which  it  is  agreed  by  the  1 2th 
article,  that  we  Should  participate  in  the  trade  of  the  Bri  th 
Well  Indies,  as  lefs  liberal  than  we  may,  with  reafon,  expert — 
The  exclufion  of  all  veflels  above  the    burden  of  fevt  ns, 

would    diminifh   the  benefits   and   value   of   this   '  md 

though  we  cannot  calculate  upon  obtaining  by  r        -  rela- 

tion a  total  removal  of  a  limitation  on  this  .uojett,  it  is  t 
altogether  improbable  that  a  tonnage  fomethjng  larger  ma  be 
procured. 

Thole  who  are  converfant  with  our  prefent  intercourfe  with 
the  Weft  Indies  can  bi.lt  determine  whether  many  veflels  under 
feventy  tons  burden  are  not,  at  this  time,  profit. tbl>  employed 
in  that  trade  :  it  is  believed  to  be  true,  that  previous  to  our 
independence,  vefTcls  of  this  burden  were  much  engaged  111 
that  employ  as  well  in  the  fouthern  as  in  the  eaftem  itates. 

This  limitation,  though  disadvantageous,  is  not  the  ftrongeft 
objection  to  the  1  2th  article  :  the  restraining  or  regulating  of  a 
portion  of  our  trade,  which  does  not  proceed  ftom,  and  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  treaty,  forms  a  more  decifive  reafon  againSt  the 
article  than  any  thing  elfe  that  it  contains. 

The  caufe  of  this  reftraint  is  found  in  the  commercial  jea- 
loufy  and  fpirit  of  monopoly,  which  have  fo  long  reigned  over 
the  trade  of  the  colonies — Under  oui  treaty  with  France  and 
the  French  colonial  laws,  it  has  been  ihown  that  we  could  not 
procure  from  the  French  iflands  fugar,  coffee,  cocoa,  cotton, 
or  any  of  the  other  productions,  melaffes  and  rum  excepted. — 
Great  Britain  has  feen  it  to  be  compatible  with  her  intercft  to 
admit  us  to  (hare  more  extensively  in  the  productions  of  her 
iflands;  but  (he  has  defired  to  place  limitations  on  this  inter- 
courfe. To  have  left  it  entirely  open  and  free,  would  have  been 
to  have  enabled  us  not  only  to  fupply  ourfelves  by  means  of  our 
own  navigation,  but  to  have  made  it  an  inftrument  of  the  fup- 
ply of  other  nations  with  her  Welt  India  productions. 

When  we  reflect  upon  the  eitablifhed  maxims  of  the  colony 
fyltem,  and  moreover  when  we  confider,  that  an  entire  freedom 
of  trade  with  the  liritilh  Welt  Indies  might,  at  times,  mate- 
rially raife  the  price  of  Weft  India  productions  on  the  Britilh 
coniumers,  the  Supply  of  whom  is  eflentially  a  monopoly  in  the 
hands  of  the  BritiSh  planters,  we  ill  a  1 1  be  the  lefs  inclined  to  be- 
lieve that  Great  Britain  will  yield  an  unreftrained  commerce  with 
her  Welt  India  poSTellions  to  any  nation  whatever. 


58  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXV. 

But  if  this  was  the  object  of  the  reftraint,  it  may  be  afked, 
why  it  was  not  confined  to  fuch  enumerated  articles  as  were  of 
the  growth  or  production  of  her  own  iflands,  infteud  of  being 
fo  extended  as  to  comprehend  all  melaffes,  fugar,  coffee,  cocoa, 
and  cotton,  including  even  the  cotton  of  the  growth  of  our 
own  country  ?  It  is  very  poffible  that  the  circumltances  of  our 
native  cotton's  becoming  an  article  of  export  to  foreign  markets 
might  not  have  occurred  to  our  negociator — This  would  be  the 
iefs  extraordinary,  as  heretofore  it  has  not  been  cultivated,  ex- 
cept in  a  very  limited  degree,  and  as  an  article  of  export  rather 
in  the  manner  of  experiment  than  otherwife  ;  and,  as  moreover, 
from  the  expenfe  and  difficulty  of  feparating  the  feeds  from  the 
cotton,  we  have  been  hardly  able  hitherto  to  clafs  cotton  among 
our  exports.  Its  cultivation  is  faid  latterly  to  have  become  an 
object,  of  attention,  in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina — flill  how- 
ever it  cannot  yet  be  confidered  as  a  ftaple  commodity — But 
from  the  recent  ingenious  and  fimple  machine  for  fpinning  cot- 
ton, it  is  hoped  that  the  cultivation  may  be  extended,  fo  that 
not  only  our  own  domcttic  manufactures  may  be  relieved  from 
a  dependence  on  foreign  fupply,  but  the  catalogue  of  our  valu- 
able exports  enriched  by  the  addition  of  this  ineftimable  pro- 
duction. 

In  anfwer  to  the  queftion  that  has  been  ftated  :  it  may  be 
further  obferved,  that  thefe  enumerated  articles,  though  the 
productions  of  different  territories,  being  fo  much  alike  as  not 
cafily  to  be  diftinguifhed,  it  is  probable  that  the  difficulty  in 
difcriminating  the  productions  of  the  Britilh  iflands  from  thofe 
of  a  different  growth,  was  fuppofed  to  be  fo  grear,  that  an  ap- 
prehenfion  was  entertained  that  the  prohibition  to  re-export  the 
former  would  be  eafily  evaded  and  Hlufory,  while  the  latter 
remained  free. 

This  apprehenfion,  however,  it  is  believed,  was  carried  too 
far;  as,  on  a  minute  examination  of  the  fubject  it  will  be  found, 
that  our  laws  relative  to  drawback,  with  a  few  analogous  pro- 
vifions  in  addition,  can  be  made  fufficiently  to  difcriminate  and 
identify  on  re-exportation,  all  fuch  articles  of  the  growth  of 
the  Britifh  iflands,  as  may  be  within  our  country,  and  that  they 
will  afford  the  fame  fecurity  for  a  faithful  and  exact  execution 
of  the  prohibition  to  re-export  fuch  articles  as  that  on  which 
our  own  government  relies  againft  frauds  upon  the  revenue.  The 
application  of  thefe  laws,  with  the  requifite  additions  and  fanc- 
tiens,  may  be  fecured  by  a  precifc  ftipulafion  for  that  purpofe 
in  the  treaty,  in  fuch  manner  as  would  afford  an  adequate 
guard  againft  material  evafions. 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXV.  59 

But  though  the  conduct  of  the  fenate  in  withholding  their 
aflent  to  this  article,  is  conceived,  upon  the  whole,  to  be  well 
judged  and  wife,  yet  there  were  not  wanting  reafons  of  real 
weight  to  induce  our  negociator  to  agree  to  it  as  it  ftands. 

The  inviolability  of  the  principles  of  the  navigation  act  had 
become  a  kind  of  axiom,  incorporated  in  the  habits  of  thinking 
of  the  Britiih  government  and  nation.  Precedent,  it  is  known,  has 
great  influence,  as  well  upon  the  councils  as  upon  the  popular 
opinions  of  nations  ! — and  there  is,  perhaps,  no  country  in  which 
it  has  greater  force  than  that  of  Great  Britain — The  precedent 
of  a  ferious  and  unequivocal  innovation  upon  the  fyltem  of  the 
navigation  act,  dUTolved  as  it  were  the  fpeli  by  which  the  public 
prejudices  had  been  chained  to  it.  It  took  away  a  mighty  argu- 
ment derived  from  the  pall  inflexibility  of  the  fyitem,  and  laid 
the  foundation  for  greater  inroads  upon  opinion,  for  further  and 
greater  innovations  in  practice.  It  ferved  to  ltrip  the  queftion  of 
every  thing  that  was  artificial  and  to  bring  it  to  the  fimple  te(t  ot 
real  national  intereft,  to  be  decided  by  that  bed  of  all  arbiters, 
experience. 

It  may,  upon  this  ground,  be  ftrongly  argued  that  the  pre- 
cedent of  the  privilege  gained  was  of  more  importance  than 
its  immediate  extent — an  argument  certainly  of  real  weight, 
and  which  is  fuiEcient  to  incline  candid  men  to  view  the  mo- 
tives that  governed  our  negociator  in  this  particular,  with  favor, 
and  the  opinion  to  which  he  yielded  with  refpect.  It  is  perhaps 
not  unimportant  by  way  of  precedent,  that  the  article,  though 
not  eftablifhed,  is  found  in  the  treaty. 

Though  the  1  2th  article,  fo  far  as  refpects  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  the  trade  to  the  Britiih  iilands,  forms  no  part  of  the 
treaty,  having  been  excepted,  and  made  the  fubject  of  fur- 
ther negociation,  it  may  neverthclefs  be  uieful  to  take  notice  of 
fomc  of  the  many  ill-founded  objections  that  have  been  made 
againlt  it :  of  this  character,  is  that  which  afierts,  that  the  ca- 
talogue of  articles,  permitted  to  be  carried  by  us  to  the  Britiih 
iilands,  may  be  abridged  at  the  pleafure  of  Great  Britain,  and 
fo  the  trade  may  be  annihilated. 

The  article  ftipulates  that  we  may  carry  to  any  of  his  majef- 
ty's  iflands  and  ports  in  the  Welt  Indies,  from  the  United 
States,  in  American  veflels,  not  exceeding  feventy  tons,  any 
goods  or  merchandizes  "  being  of  the  growth,  manufacture  or 
production  of  the  faid  ftates,  which  it  is  or  may  be  lawful  to 
carry  to  the  faid  iilands,  from  the  laid  ftates,  in  Britiih  vef- 
fels;"  not  all  fuch  articles  as  it  is  and  may  be  lawful  to  carry, 
but  in  the  disjunctive,  all  fuch  as  it  is  or  may  be  lawful  to  carry  ; 
in  other  words,  all   fuch   articles  as  it  is  now  lawful  to  carry, 


6*  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXV. 

together  with  fuch  others  as  hereafter  it  may  be  lawful  to 
carry  ;  the  catalogue  may  be  enlarged,  but  cannot  be  diminifh- 
ed.  It  may  alfo  be  remarked  incidentally,  that  this  objection 
founds  ill  in  the  mouths  of  thofe  who  maintain  the  effeuriality 
of  the  fupplies  of  this  country,  under  all  poflible  circum- 
ftances,  to  the  Britilh  Weft  Indies;  for  if  this  pofition  b^ 
true,  there  never  can  be  reafonable  ground  of  apprehenfion  of 
too  little  latitude  in  the  exportation  in  Britifh  vefTels,  which  is 
to  be  the  ftandard  for  the  exportation  in  ours. 

This  article  has  been  further  criticifed  on  account  of  the 
adjuftment  of  the  import  and  tonnage  duties  payable  in  this 
trade,  and  it  has  been  attempted  to  be  fhown  that  the  footing 
on  which  we  were  to  fhare  in  the  fame  would,  on  this  account, 
be  difadvantageous,  and  the  competition  unequal.  What  is  the 
adjuftment  ?  The  article  propofes  that  Britifh  veffels  employed 
in  this  trade  fhall  pay,  on  entering  our  ports,  the  alien  ton- 
nage duty  payable  by  all  foreign  veffels,  which  is  now  fifty- 
cents  per  ton  ;  further,  the  cargoes  imported  in  Britifh  bottoms' 
from  the  Britifh  Welt  Indies,  (hall  pay  in  our  ports  the  fame 
impoft  or  duties,  that  fhall  be  payable  ^n  the  like  articles  im- 
ported in  American  bottoms ;  and  on  the  other  fide,  that  car- 
goes imported  into  the  Britifh  iflands,  in  American  bottoms, 
fhall  pay  the  fame  impoft  or  duties  that  fhall  be  payable  on  the 
like  articles  imported  in  Britifh  bottoms — that  is  to  fay,  the 
cargoes  of  each  fhall  pay  in  the  ports  of  the  other  only  native 
duties,  it  being  underftood  that  thofe  impofed  in  the  Britifh 
Welt  Indies,  on  our  productions,  are  fmall  and  unimportant, 
while  thofe  impofed  in  our  ports,  on  the  productions  of  the 
Weft  Indies,  are  high,  and  important  to  our  revenue. — The 
veffels  of  each  fhall  pay  in  the  ports  of  the  other  an  equal  alien 
tonnage  duty,  and  our  ftandard  is  adopted  as  the  common  rule. 

Is  not  this  equal  ?  can  we  expect  or  afk  Britifh  veffels  fhould 
pay  an  alien  tonnage  duty  in  our  ports,  and  that  American  vef- 
fels fhould  enter  their  ports  freely,  or  on  payment  only  of  na- 
tive tonnage  duties?  can  we  in  equity  require  them  to  pay,  on 
the  importation  of  their  cargoes  in  Britifh  veffels,  an  addition 
of  ten  per  cent,  on  the  duties  payable  on  the  importation  of 
the  like  articles  in  American  veffels,  and  at  the  fame  time  de- 
mand to  pay  no  higher  or  other  duties  on  the  cargoes  carried 
in  our  veffels  to  the  Britilh  iflands,  than  thofe  payable  by  them 
on  the  like  articles  imported  in  Britifh  veffels  ?  the  very  Itating 
of  the  queftion  fuggefts  to  a  candid  mind  an  anfwer,  that  de- 
monftrates  the  injuftice  of  the  objection.  To  expect  more, 
were  to  expect  that  in  a  trade  in  which  the  opinions  and  prac- 
tice of  Europe  contemplate  every  privilege  granted  for  a  foreign 


Gamillus— No.  XXV*  <5t 

nation  as  a  favor — we  were  by  treaty  to  fecure  a  greater  ad- 
vantage to  ourfelves  than  would  be  enjoyed  by  the  nation  which 
granted  the  privilege. 

But  it  is  added,  that  our  laws  impofe  a  tonnage  duty  of  fix 
cents  per  ton  on  the  entry  of  American  vefiels  engaged  in  fo- 
reign trade,  and  it  is  not  known  that  Britifh  vefiels  pay  any 
tonnage  duty  on  their  entry  in  their  ports  in  the  Well  Indies — 
awd  fo  uniting  the  two  entries,  that  is,  the  entry  in  the  Weft 
Indies,  and  the  entry  on  a  return  to  our  ports,  an  American 
veffel  will  pay  fifty-fix  cents  per  ton,  when  the  Britifh 
vefTels  will  pay  only  fifty  cents  per  ton — If  the  Britifh  govern- 
ment impofe  no  tonnage  duty  on  their  own  vefl'eis,  and  we  do 
impofe  a  tonnage  duty  on  ours,  this  certainly  cannot  form  an 
objection  againit  them.  They  are  as  free  to  refrain  from  the 
impofition  of  a  tonnage  duty  on  their  own  fhips,  as  we  are  to 
impofe  one  on  ours — If  their  policy  is  wifer  than  ours  in  this 
refpeel,  we  are  at  liberty  to  adopt  it,  by  repealing  the  tonnage 
duty  levied  on  American  navigation,  which,  if  we  pleafe,  may 
be  confined  to  the  particular  cafe  ;  the  efTedt  of  fuch  a  meafure 
as  far  as  it  fhould  extend,  though  the  duty  is  fmall,  would  be  to 
add  a  proportionable  advantage  to  our  {hipping  in  foreign  com- 
petition. But  the  objec't  of  the  articles  in  this  particular  is  to 
equalize,  not  the  duties  that  each  may  choofe  to  impofe  on  their 
own  vefiels,  but  thofe  that  they  fhall  impofe  on  the  vefiels  of 
each  other:  and  in  this  refpect  the  article  is  perfectly  equal — > 
It  is  perhaps  the  fivft  time  that  the  objection  of  inequality  was 
founded  on  a  circumftance  depending  on  the  laws  of  the  party 
affected  by  it,  and  removeable  at  his  own  option. 

This  view  of  the  fubjett  authorizes  a  belief,  that,  in  the 
revifion  of  the  article,  a  modification  of  it  may  be  agreed  to 
that  will  prove  fatisfaclory.  Indeed,  from  the  fhort  duration  of 
the  article,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  exprellions  made  ufe 
of  towards  the  clofe  of  it,  relative  to  the  renewal  of  the  ne- 
gotiation, for  the  purpofe  of  fuch  further  arrangements  as  lhall 
conduce  to  the  mutual  advantage  and  extenfion  of  this  branch 
of  commerce,  we  may  infer  that  Great  Britain  contemplates 
a  more  enlarged  and  equal  adjuftment  on  this  point. 

The  relaxations  which  now  exift  in  the  colonial  fyftems,  in 
confequence  of  the  neceflities  of  war,  and  which  will  change 
to  our  difadvantage  with  the  return  of  peace,  have  been  confi- 
dered  by  fome  as  the  permanent  ftate  of  things.  And  this 
error  has  had  its  influence  in  mitleading  the  public  in  refpeft 
to  the  terms  and  conditions  on  which  we  may  reafonably  expect 
to  participate  in  trade  to  the  Well  Indies — But  lee  it  be  remem- 
ber d,  that  the  restoration  of  peace  will  bring  with  it  a  reitor- 

Vol.  III.  I 


62  C A  M  1 L  L  u  s— No.  XXV. 

ation  of  t Jie  laws  of  limitation  and  exclufion,  which  conftitute 
the  colonial  fyftem.  Our  efforts  therefore  fliould  be  directed  to 
fuch  adjuftment  with  Great  Britain  on  this  point,  as  will  fe- 
cure  to  us  a  right  after  the  return  of  peace,  to  the  greateft 
attainable  portion  of  the  trade  to  her  iflands  in  the  Weft 
Indies. 

It  has  been  alleged,  fhouid  the  expected  modification  of 
this  article  retain  its  prefent  ftipulation  on  the  fiibject  of  import 
and  tonnage  duty,  that  as  France  by  treaty  may  claim  to  enjoy 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  moll  favored  nation,  (lie  would 
demaud  an  exemption  from  the  ten  per  cent,  on  the  duties  up- 
on the  productions  of  the  Weft  Indies  imported  in  foreign 
bottoms,  and  would  moreover  be  free  to  impofe  an  alien  ton- 
nage on  our  veffels  entering  her  ports  in  the  Well  Indies, 
equal  to  that  impofed  on  her  veffels  in  our  ports.  This  is  true 
—  But  in  order  tu  make  this  demand,  France  muft  agree,  by 
treaty,  to  open  all  her  ports  in  the  Weft  Indies,  to  give  us  -a 
right  to  import  into  them,  flour,  bread,  tobacco,  and  fuch 
other  articles  as  Great  Britain  fliould  permit,  and  which  France 
by  her  permanent  fyftem  prohibits ;  fhe  muft  alio  concede  to 
us  a  right  to  purchafe  in  her  iflands,  and  bring  awav,  fugar, 
coffee,  and  pimento,  which  by  the  fame  fyftem  fhe  alfo  prohi- 
bits ;  fne  muft  do  all  this,  becaufe,  by  our  treaty  with  her,  fhe 
can  only  entitle  htrfelf  to  a  fpecial  privilege  granted  to  another 
nation,  by  granting  on  her  part  to  us  the  equivalent  of  what 
was  the  confederation  of  our  grant.  Should  France  be  inclined 
to  arrange  the  trade  between  us  and  her  iflands,  we  certainly 
(hall  not  object ;  becaufe,  befides  the  right  to  fuch  an  arrange- 
ment, it  would  be  more  advantageous  to  us  than  that  which 
now  regulates  cur  intercourfe  with  her  Weft  Indies. 

So  much  of  the  twelfth  article  as  refpedls  its  duration  and 
the  renewal  of  the  negociation  previous  to  the  expiration  of 
two  years  after  the  conclufion  of  the  war,  in  order  to  agree  in 
a  new  arrangement  on  the  fubject  of  the  Weft  India  trade,  as 
well  as  for  the  puvpofe  of  endeavouring  to  agree  whether  in 
any,  and  in  what  cafes,  neutral  veflels  fhall  protect  enemy's 
property,  and  in  what  cafes  provifions,  and  other  articles  not 
genc:raiiv  contraband,  may  become  fuch,  form  a  part  of  the 
treaty  as  ratified  by  the  prefident.  Thefe  claufes  fufficiently  ex- 
plain themielves,  and  recpiire  no  comment  in  this  place.  They, 
however,  prove  one  point,  which  is,  that  after  every  effort  on 
the  part  of  our  negociator,  the  parties  were  not  able  to  agree  irv 
the  doctrine  that  free  bottoms  (hould  make  free  goods,  nor  in 
the  cafes  in  which  alone  provifions  and  other  articles  not  gene- 
rally contraband,  fliould  be  deemed  fuch.  Leaving,  therefore, 


Cato— No.  XVI.  63 

both  thefe  points  precifely  as  they  found  them  (except  in  refpect 
to  provifior.s,  the  payment  for  which,  when  by  the  law  of  na- 
tions liable  to  capture  as  contraband,  is  fecured)  to  be  regulated 
by  the  exiting  law  of  nations,  it  is  ftipulated  to  renew  the 
negociation  on  thefe  points  at  the  epoch  affigned  for  the  future 
adjuftment  of  the  Weft  India  trade,  in  order  then  to  endea- 
vour to  agree  in  a  conventional  rule,  which,  in  (lead  of  the  Jaw 
of  nations,  fhould  thereafter  regulate  the  conduct  of  the  par- 
ties in  thefe  refpects. 

The  eleventh  article  has  been  paiTed  over  in  fileucc  as  being 
merely  introductory  and  formal. 

CAMILLUS. 
[to   be  continued.] 


Obfervations  on  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty. 

[CONCLUDED   FROM  VOL.   2.   PAGE    13.] 

No.  XVI.  * 

TH  E  9th  article  ftipulates  that  fuch  Britifh  fubjects  as 
now  hold  lands  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
(hall  continue  to  hold  them  according  to  the  tenure  and  nature 
cf  their  refpective  eftates,  and  may  fell,  grant  or  devife  them 
as  if  they  were  natives,  and  renders  this  ftipulation  mutual. 
Though  this  article  may  not  be  extenfively  dangeroj.is,  yet  it 
merits  our  attention,  as  it  appears  to  infringe  the  conftitutictial 
independence  of  the  refpective  ftates. — Congrefs  alone  have  the 
power  to  naturalize  ;  but  neither  congrefs,  nor  any  member  of 
the  federal  government,  appear  to  me  to  have  any  right  to  de- 
.  dure  the  tenure  by  which  lands  (hall  be  holden  in  the  territories 
of  the  individual  Hates,  without  naturalization.  This  is  an  act 
of  fjvereignty  which  is  confined  to  the  (late  legislatures,  and 
which  they  have  not  ceiled  to  congrefs,  about  which,  there- 
fore, I  am  led  to  doubt  the  right  of  the  preiident  and  fenate  to 
treat — "  Powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States,  being  cx- 
prefsly  referved  to  the  States  or  the  people  thereof." — Is  this 
right  of  the  dates  abridged  by  the  power  of  the  prefident  and 
fenate  to  make  treaties  ?  Are  not  their  powers  to  treat  confined 
to  fuch  objects  as  the  conftitution  eutrufts   to  the   federal  go- 


64  Cato— No.  XVI. 

vernment  ?  Had  they  ftipulated  that  the  governor  of  New  York 
fhould  always  be  a  native  of  Britain,  or  that  Britifh  fubjedts 
fhould,  on  their  arrival,  be  members  of  the  city  corporation  or 
freemen  of  the  city ;  we  fhould,  I  believe,  have  pronounced 
this  article  void,  as  an  intrufion  upon  the  rights  of  the  ftate, 
and  an  affumption  of  powers  not  vcfted  in  the  parties  treating. 
Is  it  lefs  fo  to  declare  the  terms  on  which  individuals  fhall  hold 
lands  in  the  territories  of  the  refpective  dates — to  give  rights 
to  ftrangers  which  citizens  cannot  enjoy,  the  rights  of  land- 
holders without  the  burdens — the  right  of  holding  real  pro- 
perty without  being  bound  to  defend  it — ihe  right  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  pofieffion  of  that  property  by  dates  to  whom 
they  owe  no  allegiance,  and  againit  whom  they  may  even  make 
war  without  incurring  a  foifeuurc? 

Happy  Britilh  fubjects !  As  merchants  you  may  enjoy  in 
every  part  of  our  country,  all  the  privileges  of  our  fellow  citi- 
zens.— As  creditors,  you  are  entitled  to  recover  your  debts-, 
without  being  compelled  to  fubmit  to  the  forms  of  fuits,  or  the 
ufual  rules  of  evidence. — As  officers,  you  are  to  command  our 
refpe&ful  homage.' — As  land-holders,  you  are  to  poffefs  our  lands 
in  peace,  while  the  burden  of  defending  them  devolves  on  us, 
your  former  equals,  your  prefent  vaffals  — The  produce  of  our 
foil  is  to  be  diverted  from  every  other  port  but  yours. — Our  fea- 
men  are  to  fight  your  battles,  but  to  be  treated  as  pirates  if 
they  appear  in  arms  againft  you. — Our  ftatefmen  condefcend  to 
be  your  apologifts,  and  our  legiflatures  are  bound  in  future  to 
do  no  a&  which  may  affect  your  interefts !  While  congrefs 
only  are  entrufted  with  the  power  of  declaring  the  rules  of  na- 
turalization, lelt  one  ftate  by  making  the  terms  too  eafy, 
fhould  intrude  citizens  upon  others,  can  it  be  conftitutional 
for  the  prefident  and  fenate  to  exercifc  the  more  dangerous 
power  of  inverting  the  lands  of  the  refpective  ftates  in  foreign- 
ers who  fhall  not  be  compelled  to  defend  them  ?  If  the  right 
exifts  as  to  Britifh  fubjects  who  now  hold  lands,  it  may  be  ex- 
tended, on  fome  future  occafion,  to  all  who  may  hereafter 
choofe  to  purchafe.  It  is' true  the  article  does  not  go  that 
length  j  but  the  principle,  that  juftifies  it,  as  far  as  it  has  gone, 
will  apply  equally  to  every  extenfion  of  it.  It  may  not  be  im- 
proper to  remind  thofe  who  view  this  article  with  indifference, 
of  the  quantity  of  land  held  in  Georgia,  by  companies  whofe 
avowed  object  is  to  fell  it  in  Europe.  If  I  am  rightly  informed, 
it  greatly  exceeds  all  the  land  retained  by  the  ftate.  In  New 
York,  the  lands  commonly  called  Morris's,  M'Comb's,  and 
Scriba's  purchafes,  equal  in  quantity  all  the  remaining  lands  of 
the  ftate.  They  have  had  agents  for  fome  time  paft  in  England 


Cato— No.  XVI.  6 5 

for  (ale  of  thefe  lands.  If  it  was  effected  before  the  ratifica- 
tion, or  at  lead  before  the  fignature  <>f  the  treaty,  as  much 
land  may  be  held  in  this  Ita'e  by  Bri'idi  fubjedts  as  by  Ameri- 
can citizens.  If  they  were  held  in  tiuft,  which  is  highly  pro- 
bable, the  perfoti  in  whofe  favor  the  rruft  was  created,  is  now" 
fecured  from  forfeiture,  fince  they  are  to  hold  "  according  to 
the  nature  and  tenure  of  their  refpeBive  eflates  and  titles"  C5V. 
The  Britifh  conllruction  of  this  article  will  give  them  the  full  be- 
nefit of  their  purchafes;  it  may  then  happen,  even  under  the 
prefent  treaty,  as  it  now  (lands,  that  the  grea'er  part  of  the 
latuis  of  the  two  dates,  at  lealt,  belong  to  britifh  fubjects,  who 
may  look  to  their  own  favereign  for  protection,  even  againft 
the  date  whofe  lands  they  hold.  What  dangers  and  difficulties 
may  not  this  expofe  the  dates  to?  If  it  is  admitted  that  the  pre- 
fident  and  fenate  can  by  treaty  dipulate  without  the  conient  of 
a  date,  that  their  lands  may  be  held  by  Britifh  fubjects, 
what  principle  is  there  in  the  conditution  which  prevents  their 
making  the  fame  dipulation.  in  favor  of  the  Britifh  king,  or 
their  transferring  all  the  vacant  lands  in  everv  Hate  to  him? 
■Thefe  were  formerly  invefted  in  him,  and  I  doubt  not  that  if 
he  were  to  fet  up  a  claim  under  this  article,  that  he  would 
find  advocates  among  us  to  fupport  ir.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  the  exercife  of  thefe  powers  by  the  preiident  and  fenate  is 
only  derived  from  an  implication  founded  on  their  right  to  make 
treaties,  i  would  afk,  whether  a  (tronger  implication  in  favor 
of  an  exclufive  right  in  the  date  governments  to  make  regula- 
tions relative  to  this  object,  is  not  found  in  the  third  fecYion, 
fourth  article  of  the  conditution — "  Congrefs  (hall  have  the 
power  to  difpofe  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations 
refpecttng  the  territory,  or  other  property  of  the  United  States ; 
and  nothing  in  this  conditution  ihall  be  fo  conltrued  as  to  pre- 
judice any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any  particular 
Jlates."  The  claim  of  dates  to  declare  the  tenure, on  which 
their  lands  (hall  be  held,  has  never  been  difputed  ;  and  fo  jea- 
lous have  fome  of  them  been  of  it,  that  they  have  repeatedly 
refufed  to  admit  foreigners  to  hold  lands  without  naturalization. 
Several  articles,  which  appear  to  me  exceptionable,  remain 
to  be  difcufl'ed  j  but,  circumilances,  arifing  from  the  prefent 
unhappy  fituation  of  the  city,  compel  me  to  lay  afide  my  pen. 
When  thele  cireumdances  ceafe  to  operate,  I  may  again  relume 
it.  I  trud,  however,  that  enough  hat>  been  faid  to  (how,  that 
the  treaty  has  obtained  no  adequate  compenfation  for  the  inju- 
ries we  have  differed.  That  it  has  relinquifhed  important  claims 
that  we  had  upon  the  Britifh  government.  That  it  has  given  no 
protection  to  ourfeamen.  That  it  is  injurious  to  our  commerce, 


66  Cato—  No.  XVI. 

and  ruinous  to  our  navigation.  That  it  takes  from  us  the  means 
we  poffeiTed  of  retaliating  injuries  without  the  hazard  of  a  war. 
That  it  pledges  the  country  for  immenfefums  of  money,  which 
it  does  not  owe,  while  it  curtails  our  demands  upon  Britain. 
That  it  gives  the  Britifh  fubjecls  a  variety  of  privileges  in  our 
country,  which  are  but  partially  returned  to  us.  That  it  coun- 
teracts the  exifting  laws,  and  violates  the  federal  conltitution, 
and  that  it  infringes  the  rights  of  individual  Hates.  It  is  poffi- 
ble,  that  in  (fating  my  idea  of  the  treaty,  I  may  have  run  into 
errors  ;  all  I  can  fay,  is,  that  if  I  have,  none  of  them  were 
intentional  ;  that  having  no  party  to  ferve,  no  perfonal  intereft 
to  promote,  I  have  only  fpoken  fentiroents,  which  an  ardent 
love  for  a  country,  which  I  have  long  ferved,  has  inipired, 
without  wiftiing  to  miflead.  I  beg  my  fellow  citizens  to  recol- 
lect, that  if  the  treaty  will  bear  the  conftruclion  I  have  given 
it,  though  an  ingenious  commentator  may  put  a  different  ienfe 
upon  feveral  articles ;  that  (till  the  objections  I  Hate  will  remain 
in  force,  fince  it  is  not  the  weakefti  but  xhcjlrongcjl  nation  that 
conftfues  the  articles  that  admit  of  doubts,  of  which  we  have 
a  ftriking  inftance  in  this  very  treaty. — In  the  treaty  of  peace, 
the  words  of  the  article  relative  to  the  taking  away  negroes,  &c.x 
areexprefs,  the  intention  was  acknowledged  at  the  time  by  the 
commiflioners  on  both  fides,  and  not  doubted  by  either  govern- 
ment; yet  we  find  that  Camillus  has,  by  implications,  &c. 
given  it  a  meaning,  which  he  fays  renders  it  doubtful ;  he 
justifies  Mr.  Jay  in  relinquishing  our  claim. — If  this  is  juft  rea- 
foning  in  the  mouth  of  an  American  writer,  it  will  Hill  be  more 
fo  in  that  of  Britain  ;  and  the  moll  unfavorable  construction 
of  the  treaty,  will  be  the  true  one  with  refpect  to  us  ;  becaufe 
every  doubt  is  to  be  conflrucd  againft  us.  This  argument  is  ren- 
dered much  ftronger  from  the  circumftances  under  which  Mr. 
Jay  treated;  for  if  when  they  were-inore  unfavorable  to  Bri- 
tain, than  we  can  again  hope  to  find  them,  doubtful  construc- 
tions were  to  be  conitrued  to  her  advantage,  by  the  admihior. 
of  our  envoy,  they  muft,  in  future,  be  fo.  Let  us  not  then 
form  our  opinions  of  the  treaty  from  diftant  implications,  or  re- 
mote deductions,  drawn  from  fanciful  reafonings  on  the  laws 
pi  nations. 

The  exprefs  words  of  the  treaty  are  our  only  true  guide. 
Where  they  contain  unfavorable  ftipulations,  or  where  they 
neglecl  explicitly  to  declare  our  rights,  their  plain  and  obvious 
meaning  is  to  enforce  the  firit,  and  to  abridge  the  lalt.  Of  this 
we  have  already  fufficient  proof  iu  the  conttru&ion  they  have 
put  on  fome  parts  of  the  treaty  by  their  late  instructions.  I 
ihouid,  before  I  clofe,   apologize  for  many  errors,  either  of  the 


Atticus — No.  VI.  '  6y 

copyid  or  the  prefs,  or  both.  It  has  fo  happened,  that  mod  of 
the  copies  were  made  under  fuch  circumdances  as  not  to  have 
been  fubmitted  to  my  infpection,  which,  together  with  the  er- 
rors of  the  prefs,  multiplied  by  the  different  impreffions  it  has 
gone  through,  have  introduced  many  midakes,  which  the  can- 
did reader  will  correct.  It  is  alfo  proper  that  I  fhould  mention 
an  error  of  my  own  in  the  feventh  number,  which  has  not  been 
noticed  :  but  which,  as  I  have  no  wifh  to  miilead,  I  am  bound 
to  correct.  In  enumerating  the  impositions  of  Britain,  I  dated, 
that  (he  laid  heavy  duties  on  our  commodities,  rice  and  tobacco 
particularly,  and  added,  that  ive  laid  none  upon  her,  but  fuch  as 
by  treaty  ive  alloived  her  ic  equalize — '1  lie  lad  part  of  this  arti- 
cle is  an  error,  which  the  hally  manner  in  which  thefe  papers 
hive  been  written,  betrayed  me  into,  and  which  I  take  thefe 
means  to  acknowledge,  kll  (though  of  no  great  importance) 
it  might  tend  to  deceive  thofe  who  had  not  at  hand  the  proper 
means  of  correcting  the  midake. 

C  A  T  O. 


— <  «€!^<€$<  ->^$»^>- » — 
A  T  T  I  C  U  S— No.  VI. 

[CONTINUED    FROM   VOL.   2.   PAGE   228.] 

THE  hero  of  the  funding  and  excife  fydems,  the  parent  of 
that  immaculate  axiom,  which  would  do  honor  to  Con- 
dantinople,  that  a  public  debt  is  a  public  blejfmg,  has  entered  the 
llifts  as  the  champion  of  his  darling  brat,  The  Treaty.  He  is 
brandishing  his  ufual  weapons,  fcphiftry  and  feduclion,  but 
not  with  his  accudomed  fuccefs  -,  for  fince  his  character  has 
been  fully  underdood,  he  has  become  as  harmlefs,  as  to  his 
influence  upon  the  people,  as  a  toad  or  a  cock-roach;  and,  like 
thofe  animals,  he  excites  fenfations  which  are  thofe  of  aver- 
fion  more  than  of  dread.  Divetted  of  that  inllrumentality 
which  he  employed  but  too  fuccefsfully  againd  his  countrv, 
the  circle  of  his  corruptions  mull  be  narrowed,  and  the  whips 
and  dings  of  an  accufi.ng  conscience  mud  now  be  fubliituted 
for  the  fupreme  agency  in  the  affairs  of  the  United  States. — « 
The  political  herefies  which  he  labuured  to  cdablifh,  with  all 
the  zeal  of  a  fanatic,  have  unfortunately  acquired  an  influence 
where  they  may  dill  prove  dangerous,  and  the  unlimited 
afcendency  that  lie  feems  yet  to  maintain  ever  minds,  which 


68  Atticus — No.  VI. 

ought  to  be  free  from  fuch  flavifh  fhackles,  fhadows  the  prof- 
pects  that  are  opening  to  the  American  world. 

He  has  again  raifed  the  war  whoop,  an^  expects,  by  his 
hideous  yells,  to  terrify  you,  fellow  citizens,  into  an  abandon- 
ment of  your  rights,  a  prostitution  of  the  firit  bleflings  of  a 
free  people.  Have  the  funding  and  cxcife  fyftems  paralized 
your  energies,  that,  like  children,  you  are  to  be  terrified  by 
icare  crows  ?  No  !  For  whatever  calculations  he  may  have 
made  in  this  refpect,  his  public  blefBngs  have  not  yet  trans- 
formed you  into  the  eunuchs  of  liberty,  and  as  you  were  not 
to  be  intimidated  by  the  roaring  of  the  Britifh  lion  during  the 
revolution,  you  cannot  be  alarmed  at  the  brayings  of  an  ani- 
mal,   who  has  only  covered  himfelf  with  his  flcin. 

The  war-whoop  of  "  Cnmi/lus"  begat  the  negociation,  and 
benumbed  the  faculties  of  our  country  ;  and  he  expects,  by 
the  magic  of  his  yelpings,  to  give  life  to  an  abortion,  that, 
like  the  fabled  Bafilifk,  would  look  liberty  tcyieath.  If  the 
threat  of  war  is  to  produce  a  renunciation  of  our  rights  as  a 
nation,  and  of  our  freedom  as  a  people,  we  had  better  diveft  our- 
felves  of  the  trouble  of  our  independence,  and  place  ourfelves 
formally  under  the  guardianfhip  of  a  foreign  power  ! — Did  the 
cry  of  war  terrify  us  into  a  compliance  with  the  dictum  of 
Great  Britain,  to  bind  us  in  all  cafes  whatever?  Did  it  make 
us  fwallow  the  tea,  which,  like  the  treaty,  was  to  have  palfied 
us  into  flavery  ?  Did  it  make  us  cringe  to  his  Britannic  ma- 
jefty,  and  "  lick  the  hand,  juft  raifed  to  ihed  our  blood  r"  Were 
our  energies  greater  at  the  commencement  of  the  late  revolution, 
than  they  are  now  !  Or  have  we  become  more  corrupt  ?  This 
is  the  rub,  fellow  citizens — the  inftrumentality  of  a  funding 
fyjlem,  aided  by  BritiJJj  influence  and  directed  by  another  Wal- 
pole,  had  not  then  enervated  us.  We  were  ftrangers  to  corrup- 
tion, and  principle  incited  us  to  the  maintenance  of  our  rights. 
Is  the  queltion  war  or  flavery  ?  War  is  the  alternative  annexed 
to  a  rejection  of  the.  treaty  by  Camillus,  and  flavery  the  alter- 
native of  its  acceptance,  in  the  mind  of  every  we  11- wither  to 
his  country.  If  war  or  flavery  is  then  the  quellion,  rather  let 
the  temple  of  Janus  be  forever  open,  than  that  liberty  fhould 
be  made  a  peace  offering  to  a  Britilh  tyrant.  But  will  that  fo- 
vereign,  upon  "  whofe  goodnefs  and  juftice,"  we  have  placed 
fuch  reliance,  let  loofe  the  clogs  of  war,  if  the  "  deteftable 
faction,"  the  people,  refufe  his  frienrifhip,  as  exprefied  by  the 
treaty?  Should  they  be  hardened,  will  not  twenty  righteous  bs 
found,  twenty  who  are  uncontaminated  with  rcpublicanifm,  to 
fave  Sodom?    Stern,    indeed,    mull  be  that  juliice,  inflexible 


Atticus — No.  VI.  69 

that  goodnefs,  which  would  not  fave  a  finking  land  on  account 
of  a  few  righteous,  that  might  be  found  within  it !  ! 

No  !  No  !  "  Camillus" — your  "  great,  gocd,  and  dear  friend," 
is  too  much  occupied  with  his  neighbours  on  the  other  fide  the 
channel,  to  find  time  to  attend  to  us — Like  the  bear  who  was 
furrounded  by  hornets,  he  is  too  bufy  to  be  attracted  by  any 
thing  at  a  diftance.  The  plethora  of  his  body  politic  has  been 
too  much  reduced  by  the  French  bayonet,  to  be  in  vigor  to 
attack  men  who  once  treated  him  fo  roughly.  We  fear  him 
not — we  want  no  proxies  to  fight  our  battles  ;  and  if  your  nerves 
are  too  weak,  or  your  reverence  for  majtfty  too  great,  ceafe 
your  attempts  to  communicate  your  weakneffes  to  the  athletic 
freemen  of  America.  Confine  your  feduitions  to  ycur  prcfent 
circle ;  for  by  keeping  them  within  thofe  limits,  you  may 
efcape,  for  a  time,  the  contempt  and  deteftation  which  me- 
nace you. 

But  if  war  is  fuch  a  dreadful  calamity,  fo  much  to  be  de- 
precated, that  the  phantoms  of  it  alone  Of) (bring  the  cob-web 
nerves  of  "  Camillus,"  what  will  be  our  condition,  when  the 
grifly  moniter  Mars,  arrayed  in  all  his  terrors,  rufhes  to  re- 
venge the  injuries  and  perfidies  done  to  the  French  republic  ? 
Does  he  fuppofe,  that  war  can  become  an  evil  only  when 
waged  againft  his  idol,  Great  Britain  ?  Would  the  part  which 
we  (hould  take  in  the  league  of  defpot6,  fhould  the  treaty  ob- 
tain, foften  the  horrors  or  mitigate  the  diftrefies  of  w  ir  ? 
Would  a  war  with  the  French  republic  prop  a  funding  Jyfiem, 
that  he  feems  fo  careleis  about  it  ?  Should  his  bafLard  be  legi- 
timized, there  can  be  little  doubt,  that  France  would  confider 
it  as  an  infraction  of  our  neutrality,  as  a  fupercefiion  of  our 
engagements  with  her,  and  as  a  virtual,  though  not  formal, 
accellion  to  the  confederacy  of  tyrants  againll  her.  Circum- 
flances,  my  fellow  citizens,  will  juftify  the  fufpicion,  that  a 
war  with  the  French  republic  would  be  confidered  as  a  thing 
devoutly  to  be  wifhed  by  Camillus  and  his  friends,  and  that 
the  treaty  was  formed  with  a  folicitude  for  that  event.  There 
feems  to  have  been  a  deliberate  plan  to  exterminate  liberty, 
and  this  was  to  have  been  effected  by  throwing  oiY  the  connex- 
ion with  France,  and  confolidating  ourfelvcs  with  Great  Bri- 
tain.— In  the  arms  of  defpotifm,  liberty  would  have  been  fuf- 
focated ;  and  in  the  arms  of  a  Britifh  tvrant  I.^r  iate  would 
have  been  inevitable. 

The    increafe   of  affection  for  France,   in  the  breads  of  the 

American    citizens,  fwe  Jbw became  a    rtpublic,   iceins    to    have 

produced    a  ferious  alarm  among  the  Atifkftratxa  faftion  of  the 

"United  States ;    and  hence  the   repugnance  to   treat   with  her 

Vol.  III.  £ 


70  At  tic  us — No.  VII. 

anew — hence  the  Machiavelian  conftruclion  of  every  thing 
which  was  due  to  her — and  hence  the  folicitude  to  form  the 
unnatural  alliance  that  has  manifefted  itfelf  in  the  treaty.  That 
the  government  of  the  United  States  has  been  making  rapid 
flrides  towards  ariftocracy,  no  unprejudiced  man,  at  this  time 
of  day,  will  deny  ;  and  that  a  connexion  with  Great  Britain 
was  fought  for,  to  facilitate  this  object,  no  one,  who  has  no- 
ticed the  fteps  of  our  adminiftration,  and  has  read  the  treaty, 
unbiafled  by  party  fpirit,  will  controvert.  If  there  was  not  an 
extraordinary  predilection  for  Great  Britain,  would  the  United 
States  have  been  pafTive  under  the  many  outrages  they  have 
fuituined< — would  they  have  fufFered,  in  filence,  their  feamen 
to  be  imprefTed,  like  flaves,  on  board  Britifh  (hips  of  war,  and 
would  they  have  beheld  the  unparalleled  infult,  without  emo- 
tion, that  has  been  offered  to  our  nation,  in  the  attempt  to 
feize  a  minifler  of  France,  within  the  limits  of  our  own  terri- 
tory ! !  Heaven,  earth,  and  hell,  would  have  been  conjured,  if 
an  attempr  of  the  fort  had  been  made  upon  the  minifler  of 
Great  Britain:  and  yet  thofe  fiends  are  by  treaty  "  to  be  treat- 
"  ed  with  that  refpecl  which  is  due  to  the  commiflions  which 
*'  they  btarj  and  if  any  infult  fhould  be  offered  to  them,  by 
*»  any  of  the  inhabitants,  all  offenders,  in  this  refpecl:,  (hall 
"  be  punifhed  as  difturbers  of  the  peace  and  amity  between 
«*  the  two  countries"  !  ! 

Fellow  citizens,  I  have  digrefled  from  the  treaty  ;  but  you 
will  think  it  excufable,  as  you  know  the  caufe  ;  for  the  man 
who  can  behold  the  bare-faced  attempts  upon  our  rights,  and 
the  audacious  outrages  upon  our  country,  without  the  ilrongeft 
emotions,  is  unworthy  of  the  freedom  and  inheritance  of  the 
revolution. 


Augufl  8th,   1795. 


ATT  I  C  US. 


No.  VII. 


A  SOLEMN,  an  awful  filence  pervades  the  world  of 
American  politics,  portentive  of  fome  great  event.  The 
fignature,  the  unexpected  fignature  of  the  prefident  to  the 
treaty,  has  momentarily  paralized  the  American  mind,  as  if  by 
etherial  impulfe  ;  and  it  has  not  yet  recovered  from  the  incubus 
of  aftonifhment  and  grief,  with  which  it  was  oppreffed.  The 
omnipotence  of  truth  will,  however,  at  laft  prevail ;  and 
though  the  Americans   are   grateful,    they  are  juftj  and  that 


Atticus — No.  VII.  71 

fenfe  o(  juflice  will  prevent  a  barter  of  their  own  rights  and 
their  own  happinefs  for  the  gratification  of  any  individual,  h<  ••- 
ever  high  his  oivn  claim  to  an  unlimited  contrul  over  his  coun- 
try. The  conflict,  of  jarring  feelings,  the  ftrife  between  grati- 
tude and  felf-love,  has,  for  a  moment,  fufpended  the  voice  of 
injured  freemen;  but  the  feeble  mound  of  gratitude  will  not 
long  refill  the  impetuous  and  imperious  ca:ar.cl  <  c  felf-prefer- 
vation. — Gratitude  !  What  means  it  when  in  contact  with  poli- 
tical judice!  What  means  it,  when  thrown  in  the  oppofite 
balance  of  our  happinefs  !  Does  an  individual  claim  more  feel- 
ing than  ourfelves,  our  families,  our  country!  Does  he  demand 
fentiments  in  hoftility  to  our  own  repute  !  Human  nature  mult 
undergo  a  revolution  before  this  can  come  to  pafs,  and  virtue 
yield  its  throne  to  vice. 

The  fervices  of  the  prefident,  during  the  revolution,  are 
decked  in  all  their  charms,  to  feduce  us  from  a  queftion  of  his 
prefent  motives.  He  is  held  up  to  us  as  the  high  pried  of  liberty, 
to  give  abfolution  to  our  own  fenfaiions.  The  amiable  virtue, 
gratitude,  is  appealed  to  in  our  bolbms,  to  neutralize  ir  indig- 
nation, at  hib  having  figned  the  treaty,  after  the  general  fenti- 
ments of  his  country  had  been  made  known  to  him,  in  oppofition  to 
it.  Had  his  fignature  been  given  immediately  after  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  fenate,  and  before  an  umverfal  expv  ffion  of  dif- 
approbation  of  it  had  taken  place,  ingenuity  might  have  found 
a  cover  for  him  ;  but  the  public  mind  feems  to  have  been 
defignedly  wrought  up  to  the  highelt  key  of  expectation,  that 
the  contempt  of  it  might  be  more  drongly  difclofed.  Is  grati- 
tude to  put  a  feal  upon  our  lips  under  fuch  circumdances  ?  Are 
freemen  to  be  treated  with  the  mo  ft  marked  contumely,  and  :> 
be  paffive  under  it  like  flaves  ?  Is  the  prefident  to  receive  in  : 
reverence  than  our  constitution,  and  more  devotion  than  liber- 
ty I  Let  us  be  confident,  and  either  renounce  our  conditu-  :, 
and  our  pretentions  to  freedom,  or  rally  round  them  in  c 
tradiction  to  the  will  of  an  individual.  I  will  endcavoui  > 
prove  to4  you,  my  fellow  citizens,  in  the  courfe  of  thefe  letters, 
that  our  conditution  has  been  totally  difregarded,  and  that  the 
prefident  has  fubdituted  his  will,  for  the  will  of  the  people — 
that  he  has  thwarted  the  affections  of  the  people,  an  i  1  con- 
tempt of  their  attachment  to  the  republic  of  France,  and  aver- 
fion  from  Great  Britain,  has  deceived  the  one,  and  crouched  to 
the  other.  If  gratitude  is  due  to  the  prefident,  has  not  France  like- 
wife  a  claim  to  it?  Shall  he  prove  ungrateful  to  her,  and  nve 
prove  grateful  to  him  ?  Shall  he  pracr. ;ce  deception  upon  the 
belt  friend  of  our  country,  a  friend  to  whole  generous  aid  he 
owes  his    prefent  greatnefc, — aud    (halt    we  prove    perfidious 


72  Atticus — No.  VII. 

enough  to   give  it   our  countenance?  Shrill  he  take  Great  Bri- 
tain into  hit  bofom,  Great  Britain  who  fought  to  enflave  us,  who 
has  been  guilty  of  every  bafeneis  and  every  outrage  againft  u?, 
and  Hull  we  be  obliged  to  fmile  upon  the  monfter,  and  receive 
the  kifs  of  Judas  ?  Shall  he   greet  the   tyrant    George,  as  his 
"  great,  good,  and  dear  friend ;"  and   fhall  we  be   obliged   to 
recognize  fuch  facrilege  of  liberty  ?  Shall  he  colonize  us  anew, 
and    fhall  we  be  obliged  to  fubferibe   the  fhameful  compact  ? 
Shall  that  independence,  which  he  affifted  to  eftabhfh,  be  pro- 
llrated  by  him  at  the  feet  of  Great  Britain — fhall  that  tonltitu- 
ticn,  the  facred  bond  of  union  and  dear  bought  inheritance  of 
the  revolution,  be  trampled  under  foot  by   him,  and  gratitude 
ftill  be  chaunted  in  our  ears  ?  Was  the  revolution  defigned   to 
make  him  a  monarch,  and  a  few  fpcculators  noblemen  !   Is  this 
the  gratitude  that  is  demanded?  Are  we  to   eftabhfh  a  political 
infallibility,  and  confecra'e  a   political    pope    in  our   country  ? 
Is  it  longer  to  continue  impious  ro  arraign  prefidential  meafures*? 
if  lo,  I  will  preach  up  a  reformation,  and  dare  to  be  a  Luther  in 
politics. — I  will  ftrive  to  unmalk  the  idoi  we   have  fet  up,  and 
{how  him  to  be  a   man — and  a  man  too,  not  fafhioned  accord- 
ing to  the  model  of  liberty.  In  figning  the  treaty,  the  prefident 
has  thrown   the  gauntlet ;  and   fhame  on  the    coward   heart, 
that  refufes  to  take  it  up.  He  has  declared  war  againft  the  peo- 
ple, by  treating  their  opinions  with  contempt — he  has  forfeited 
his  claim   to  their  coniidence,  by  adting  in  oppofition  to  their 
will, — and  fhall  we  not  dare  to  fpeak  our  injuries,  and  proclaim 
our  wrongs  ! 

Fellow  citizens,  we  are  on  the  eve  of  fome  great  event — our 
liberties  are  in  jeopardy,  and  we  mult  cither  refcue  them  from 
the  precipice,  or  they  will  be  loft  to  us  for  ever.  One  hope  offers 
itfeif  to  us,  and  a  coufolatory  one  too,  the  hoitfe  of  reprefe Mo- 
tives of  tlw  United  Sates.  As  we.  have  looked  in  vain  for  patri- 
otifiri  from  the  prefident,  let  us  turn  our  eyes  towards  that 
body—  :'.,  \  are  our  immediate  representatives — they  feel  our 
wants,  participate  in  our  injuries,  and  fympathize  in  our  dif- 
trefies.  They  never  will  fubmit  to  having  our  country  degraded 
— they  never  wili  be  pallive  under  the  outrages  upon  our  con- 
ilitution — thev  never  will  be  the  inftruments  of  voting  away 
their  own  and  the  people's  rights.  As  our  application  to  the 
prefident  has  been  treated  with  (corn,  let  us  make  our  appeal  to 
that  body,  which  has  the  power  of  impeachment — and  we  fhall 
not  hnd  in  them  the  ftep  fathers  of  their  country.  A  treaty 
which  has  bartered  aw;.y  their  rights,  cannot,  will  not  be  fub 
mitred  to — Let  us,  then,  my  fellow  citizens,  rally  round  our 
representatives,  and  we  may  itill  be  lree  ! 

ATTICUS 
Auguft  2 1 ft,  1795. 


[No.  X.> 
T  H  £ 


American  Remembrancer; 


AN  IMPARTIAL  COLLECTION 

O  F 

ESSAYS,    RESOLVES, 

SPEECHES,    & 

RELATIVE,  OR  HAVING  AFFINITY,  TO  THB 

TREATY  with  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

VOLUME     III. 
PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED    BY  RICHARD   FQLWELL, 
FOR   MATHEW    CAREY,   NO.     I  I  8,  M  ARK  ET-STREET, 


•BFCEMBER   l6,    1 795'""^ 


CONTENTS. 


Pag$ 


|.   Cinna,  No.  I. 


13 


2. No.  //.---  80 

3.  No.  III.                   -                    -  89 

4.  No.  IV.             -  96 

*;.  Refolutions  of  the  Franklin  Society         m  -              102 

6.  Refections  on  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty  No.   I.         -  -          114 

7. Afo.  //•         -  -          122 

8.  American  Appeals              -            -          -  -               132 

p.   Obfervations  on  Mr.   Jays  Treaty              -  -          136 
10.    Obfervations  on  the  XlVth  article  of  Mr.  Jays  Treaty    138 

XI.   Cc  -lillus  refuted by  Alexander  Hamilton  -               140 

12.  Rfiarks  on  do.          -               -              -  141 

13.  Addrefs  of  the  Citizens  of  Charlefown  to  the  Prcftdcnt   143 

14.  Prefdent'sAnfiocr              -          -              -  ibid. 
T5.   Proceedings  of  the  Citizens  of  Frederic  County,  Virginia    1 44 


American  Remembrancer,   &*c. 


From  the  New-York  Arcus. 
CINN  A.— No.  I. 

GfcizeH  Grcrnh'af, 

TO  expatiate  on  the  juilice,  power,  and  refources  of 
Great-Britain — to  jellify  all  her  a.  Is,  however  wanton 
and  unjuft — to  depreciate  his  own  country,  and  to  place  bef 
in  the  wrong  upon  every  occafion,  are  favourite  themes  with 
CAMILLUS.  Hence  it  was  no  matter  of  furprizeto  find  him 
in  his  third  number,  attempting  a  formal  vindication  of  GrejL- 
Britain  for  carrying  away  the  negroes,  and  ridiculing ,our  claims^ 
on  that  fubject,.  As  this  is  the  firlt  number  thai  contains  any 
thing  like  argument,  it  ought  not  to  paffi  unnoticed.  By  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  his  Britannic  mnjeiry  agreed  "  not  to  carry 
away  any  negroes  from  the  United  States."  This,  lav-  C  •■- 
milius,  mult  mean  either  negroes  which  h&d  been,  or  which 
at  the  ceflation  of  hoftilities  continued  to  be  American  proper- 
ty. When  the  meaning  of  an  inftrument  is  doubtful,  there 
cannot  be  a  fafer  or  fairer  way  to  obtain  its  true  lenlc,  than  bv 
coniiucrmg  its  circumftances,  and  the  views  oi  the  parties  at 
the  time  of  making  the  contra-.!,  and  that  they  acted  with 
good  faith  to  each  other.  To  apply  this  rule  ;  during  the  late 
war,  many  negroes  had  been  taken  by,  or  had  voluntarily 
joined  the  armies  or  gone  into  the  garrifons  of  Great-Britain. 
To  reclaim  them,  and  prevent  their  being  carried  awav,  was 
an  object  which  our  commillioners  had  much  at  heart ;  and 
it  is  noi  eafy  to  conceive  how  this  obje<fr.  could  have  been  cx- 
p  re  fled  in  plainer  or  lefs  ambiguous  terms.  It  Will  15 
bered,  that  Franklin  had  an  a^  n.v  in  that  treaty  ;  and  per- 
haps no  man  ever  excelled  hi  «  perfpicuity  and  pertinency 
"of  expreifkin  •,  that  thoie  negri^.-  aid  thofe  alone  were  in  thfc 
contemplation  of  both  parties,  refuhs  from  the  very  nature  of 
the  cafe.  It  could  not  be  ncccflary  t<>  gud 
predations  of  this  kind  —  peace  being  made,  all  ! 
every  kind  ceafed.  As  v  ell  might  a  claufe  hive  been  iti4 
io  prohibit  fhips  of  war,  ot  the  different  p.  ».n  natcnv* 


*6  ClNNA XO.    I. 

prizes  during  the  peace;  as  the  captains  of  fuch  veiicis  would 
have  been  treated  like  pirates,  (o  might  every  negro,  or  his  va- 
lue, been  recovered  by  a  regular  courfe  of  law,  irom  any  per- 
fon  who  had  taken  him  after  the  peace,  without  any  imputa- 
tion in  the  treaty  for  that  purpofe.  To  confine  this  article, 
therefore,  to  an  engagement  to  abitain  from  further  plunder, 
is  rendering  it  altogether  negative  and  ufclefs  -,  which  is  never 
to  be  fuppofed,  and  cannot  be  prefumed  to  have  been  the  inten- 
tion of  either  party.  The  reafoning  of  Camillus  is  conltrain- 
ed  and  contradictory  -,  in  one  breath,  he  likens  the  negroes 
to  "  horles,  cattle,  and  other  moveables.,  and  as  fuch  liable  to 
become  booty  ;"  in  the  next  confidering  them  "  as  rational 
beings*  and  as  entitled  to  liberty  under  llritiiii  proclamations, 
he  concludes  it  would  have  been  odious  and  i tumoral  to  let 
them  pafs  ag-in  into  flavcry."  Let  us  bellow  a  moment,  for 
a  moment  will  fuilice,  to  detect  the  fophiitry  of  each  of  thefe 
arguments. 

"Admitting  that  flaves  may  become  booty,  and  that  their 
property  becomes  vetted  in  the  captor,  has  he  not  a  right  to 
reitove  them,  if  he  pleafes,  at  a  peace?  did  not  this  city  belong 
to  the  king  of  Great-Britain  by  conquelt  ?  and  did  he  not 
agree  to  evacuate  it,  rather  than  continue  an  unequal  war? 
did  not  the  American  artillery,  which  he  found  in  our  forts,  be- 
long to  him  by  the  fame  right ;  yet  he  agreed  to  leave  it  be- 
hind ?  when  he  finds  how  ably  his  infractions  of  the  treaty 
are  defended  by  our  own  citizens,  he  will,  no  doubt,  regret 
that  he  evacuated  New-York  as  foon  as  he  did ;  for  the  fame 
argument  ufed  by  Camillus  to  juflify  his  detention  of  the 
rn  pods,  would  apply  equally  (trong  to  his  having  kept 
rarrifons  till  this  time  in  our  fca-ports,  the  prompt  evacuation 
of  which  this  writer  confiders  rather  as  a  matter  of  grace  in 
his  majefty,  than  of  Uriel:  obligation  on  his  part.  To  return — 
as  the  negroes  which  were  taken,  belonged  to  the  king,  he 
mi<dvt  prefer  reftoring  them  to  their  former  owners,  rather 
than  be  encumbered  with  their  maintenance,  which  would 
probably  have  been  the  confeeuence  of  giving  them  freedom  j 
to  have  fold  them,  would  have,  ill  comported  with  his  dignity. 
It  mud  be  considered  alio,  .  ^  t  in  reftoring  them  to  their  maf- 
ters.  he  would  take  care  to  receive  an  equivalent  for  fuch  con- 
ceflion.  "What  this  equivalent  was,  none  but  the.  commiffion- 
crs  can  know  ;  perhaps  they  agreed  to  recommend  the  tories  to 
mercy  in  confideration  of  his  rnajefty's  reftoring  thie  negroes  ; 
whatever  the  inducement  may  have  been,  he  promi.es,  oy  an 
•expreffion  as  latitudinary  as  can  well  be  devifed,  not  to  carry 


ClNNA No.    1\  — 

away  &nf  of  them,  that  is,  he  will  leave  them  a)l  whether  ac- 
quired by  capture  or  enticed  away  by  his  royal  offers.  If  an  ex- 
ception had  been  intended)  ill  favor  of  any  clafs,  it  would  have 
found  its  way  into   the  treaty  :  none  being  made,  the  descrip- 
tion muft  cither  be  nugatory,  or  extend  to  all  the  blacks,  who 
Were  then    living,  and   in  the   power  of  his  troops,  arming 
them  againft  their  matters,  and  not  in  making  amends  for  fuch 
an  abominable  warfare,  by  fending  them  home  again.  But  if 
fuch  promifes  were  really  made,  or  if  a  treaty  of  amity  and 
-alliance,  offenfive  and  defenfive,  actually  exiited  between  his 
Britannic  majelty,  and  who  had  not  been  actually  carried  from 
the  continent  before  the  treaty,  the  other  pofition  cannot  be 
Hlpported  without  charging  the  king  with   the   greateft  du- 
plicity and  want  of  good  faith,  which  I  fhall  not  offend  Ca- 
millus  fo  much  as  to  fuppofe  his  majefty  Capable  of.  It  would 
be  odious  and  immoral,  fays  he,  to  return  to  their  former  maf* 
ters,  riegroes  who  had  joined   them  on  a  promifc  of  liberty* 
Any  Other  but  Camillas  would  have  thought  the  immorality 
cor. tilled  in  alluring  away  the  lwarthy  domeftics  of  America* 
Why  not  be  explicit,  and  explain  with  good  faith,  to  the  ple- 
nipotentiaries, the  folemn  engagement  he  was  under  •>  inftead 
of  Ripulating  a  fpecilic  return,  an  equivalent  might  then  have 
been  .'.greed  upon  ;  or  if  faith  muft  be  broken,  either  with  the 
begroes,  or  with  the  United  States,  would  it  not  have  been 
a  lets  reflection  on  Great-Britain,  to  give  up  the  former,  whom 
(he  was  no  longer  able  to  protect,  (as  the  did  the  tories)  and 
to  whom  fhe  was  probably  under  no  other  than  immoral  en- 
jtgements.  contained  in  proclamations,  iffued   upon  the  fole 
authority  of  fome  lavage  officers,  than  to  break,   in  the  very 
moment  of  Ilgning,  a  folemn  compact,  formally  and  delibe-i 
lately  entered  into  with  the  latter?  was  (lie  not  under  as  folemn 
engagements  to  the  toties   who  had  efpoufed  hzx  caufe,  and 
received  protections  from  her  generals;  yet  their  perfons  and 
properties  were  abandoned,  or,  which  was  the  fame  things 
placed  upon  the  precarious  footing  of  a  recommendation  on 
the  part  of  congrefs,  for  favor  and  pardon  to  the  legiflatures 
:of  the  different  itates.  Not  a  man  of  this  description  who  had 
'been   banifhed,  cotfld  return  without  a  law  for   the  purpofe. 
Does  Camillus  imagine  that  the  interefts  of  thefe  Africans  lay 
nearer  the  heart  of  their  gracious  monarch,  whofc  virtues  ar,d 
humanity  he  takes  fo  <i\Vi:h  pleafure  in  blazoning,  than   thofe 
of  his  own  deluded  fubje&Sj  whos   notwithltanding  his  deli- 
berate facriliec  of  them,  continue  as   firmly  a;  ever  devoted 
to  him. 

Vol.  III.  M 


-S  C:\NA — No.   I. 

ijefty  be  really  (what  no  one  but  Camillu 

fufp.  .bout  doing  an  odious  acYion,  or  break* 

ted  faith  to  his  black  allies,  why  juftify  him  for 

•  our  expenfe  ?  If  he  he-  as  jujt,  magnanimomi^ 

.r  envoy  has  reprcfented  him,  why  docs  he 

ty  for  the  liberty  which  he  thought  it  his  duty  to  confer 

his  majelty's  abhor- 
rence of  I  luced  him  to  c  people  away  ?  The 

It  him — his  majciiy,  like 
noong  oUrfelves  (I  do  not  mean  the  quakers,  tor  I 
believe  them  to  act  from  principle)  is  a  greal  advocate  for 
irunumiflion,  when  his  own  intereitsor  thoie  of  Lis   fubjects 
are  not  affected  by  it,  or  when  the  Uni  ,  notwithstand- 

ing his  unbounded  affection  for  them)  are  alone  injured  by  it. 
As  foon,  then,  as  the  Britiih  king  found  that  his  recent  en- 
ments   with  this  country  could  not    be  executed  fj 
without  violal  i  .uecedent  promifes  to  the  negroes, 

ad  of  quibbling,  and  putting  on  his  agreement  a  conduc- 
tion which  rendered  it  a  ch\i.  be  would  have  acted  more 
confident  with  the  character  afcribed  to  him  by  the  friends  of 
the  prefent  treaty,  by  candidly  communicating  his  embarrafl- 
ments  to  our  government.  We  thould  readily  have  contented 
to  a  pecuniary  compenfation  ;  Camillus,  it  is  true,  averts, 
that  "  when  a  party  promifes  a  fpecific  thing,  nothing  but  the* 
thing  itfelf  will  fatisfy  the  promiie." — If  Camillus  be  a  lawyer, 
he  certainly  knows  that  nothing  is  more  common  than  a  fa- 
tion  in  damages  for  the  breach  of  a  promife  to  do  a  fpecific 
thing j  and  that  in  a  great  variety  of  cafes  it  h  the  only  fatisfac- 
tiun  to  which  the  law  can  or  will  compel  the  deliquent  party ; 
and  that  fuch  damages  being  paid,  tlie  promife  is  as  completely 
fatisfied  as  by  doing  of  the  fpecific  thing.  Thus,  if  a  perfon  con- 
tract to  deliver  me  a  fhip,  or  a  horfe  which  he  afterwards  fells 
to  another,  or  to  come  nearer  to  the  cafe  before  us,  he  engages 
to  reilore  me  a  negro  which  he  afterwards  tends  away,  and 
thus  puts  a  fpecific  performance  out  of  his  power,  my  only 
claim  againft  him  is  for  a  compenfation  commenfurate  to  the 
injury  lultained  by  his  breach  of  promiie.  It  would  be  abfurd 
in  the  extreme  ie.-  America,  at  this  time,  to  infill  upon  a  re- 
turn of  thole  negroes.  Many  are  dead  ;  and  of  thofe  who  fur- 
\  ne,  the  greater  part  mult  be  in  the  decline  of  life,  and  would 
be  of  little  ufe  to  their  former  matters.  A  compenfation  then  is 
all  that  can  be  silked  ;  this  is  precifely  the  controverfy  betweeri 
the  two  governments.  The  United  States  (and  Camillus  will 
nut  contend  againft  their  right  fo  to  do)  relcafe  G.  Britain  from 


Cinna — No;  I.  7y 

afpccific  compliance,  and  infifb  upon  an  equivalent  in  money. 
With  what  other  view,  then,  but  to  deceive,  does  Camillus  ob- 
ferve,  that  "  the  party 'to  whom  a  promife  is  made,  cannot  be 
required  to  accept  in  lieu  of  it  an  equivalent  ?  Did  he  not  know 
that  the  United  States  were  willing  to  receive]  and  afic< 
nothing  more  than  an  equivalent,  fo  that  there  could  be  no  11c- 
ceffity  of  enquiring  into  the  right  of  Great-Britain  to  force 
them  to  it  ? 

It  is  proper  to  fubjoin,  that  the  conftruclion  of  this  article 
by  Camillus,  is  oppofed  to  the  interpretation  which  our  go- 
verment  have  uniformly  put  upon  it,  i:.  contrary  to  the  expla- 
nation of  it  by  mr.  Jefferfon,  whofe  correfpondence  with  mr. 
Hammond  is  recommended,  as  the  bed  antidote  againft  the 
mifchievous  and  humiliating  doctrines,  fo  warmly  inculcated 
by  this  writer.  Every  American  will  turn  witb  pleafure  from 
a  laboured  panegyric  of  the  Britifh  government,  a  ttrenuous- 
and  uncandid  vindication  of  all  its  arbitrary  proc*  dings  to- 
wards this  country,  and  from  the  degrading  representation  of' 
the  United  States,  which  fill  fo  many  columns  of  Camillus,  L-> 
the  manly,  energetic,  dignified,  and  yet  candid  examination  o£ 
Jefferfon.  In  the  writings  of  this  invaluable  datefman,  he  will 
difcover  the  true  lource  of  controverfy  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. He  will  be  (hocked  at  the  perfidy  and  duplicity  of  Great- 
Britain,  and  will  be  aftonifhed  at  the  forbearance  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  molt  aggravated  and  unprovoked  infults  and 
injuries.  It  is  a  work  which  fhould  be  in  the  hands  of  every 
man.  It  will  teach  us  to  love  and  relpecl:  our  country,  a  duty 
which  cannot  be  too  lirongly  inculcated,  when  pains  are  taken 
to  infufe  a  contrary  fentknenfc 

•  I  {hall  only  afk.  if  Camillus  is  right;  haw  happened  it,  that 
a  majority  of  the  Senate,  at  their  late  feffion.  agreed  to  advife 
the  Prefideot  to  renew  negotiations  with  his  majefty  for  a 
compenfation  for  the  negroes  who  had  been  carried  away  con- 
trary to  the  7th  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace  ?  When  fo  many 
refpcftable  authorities  concur  reflecting  this  aggreffion,  it 
would  evince  a  becoming  modefty  in  Camillus  to  retract  an 
opinion  which  ought  to  find  advocates  only  in  the  Britifh  Cabi- 
net. 

July  29,  1704.  CINNA, 


[     8o     ) 

C  1  N  N  A.—  No.  II. 

FAITHFUL  to  his  promife,  and  meditating  an  attack  vrpoa 
mr.  Jefferfon,  whofc  arguments  have  hitherto  been  un- 
anfwered  ;  CAM1LLUS,  in  his  4th  eflay,  proceeds  to  inltance 
certain  infractions  of  the  treaty  of  peace  on  our  part  •, — an  ac- 
curate enumeration  of  thefe  breaches  would  require,  fays  he,  a 
tedious  refearch  :  and  who,  fir,  has  impofed  upon  you  this  odi- 
ous tafk  ?  Dees  the  duty  of  a  patriot,  or  a  citizen,  demand  it  of 
you  ?  Would  not  your  talents  and  ingenuity  he  better  employ- 
ed in  vindicating  the  injured  honor  and  rights  of  your  coun- 
try ?  Does  it  become  you  to  rack  invention  to  cover  her  with 
obloquy,  and  to  hold  her  up  as  a  faifhlefs.  and  treacherous  na- 
tion ?  Does  it  comport  with  the  character  of  a  citizen  of  the 
United  St  i  s,  after  their  minifter  had  filenced  the  objections 
of  the  Britiih  ambafiador,  to  juftify  a  perfidious  prince  for  his 
breaches  of  faith  and  his  violences  towards  America  ?  will  it  an- 
fwer  any  valuable  purpofe  to  ftigmatife  the  Legiflature  of  your 
own  date,  for  a£ts  which  preceded  the  treaty,  and  which  were 
fuggefted  by  the  fpur  of  the  occafion,  and  by  2  regard  to  felf-de- 
fence  ?  Will  the  recollection  produced  by  a  review  of  the  con- 
duel  of  the  different  parties  during  the   war,  be  profitable,. or 
conciliating  ?  Will  not  every  American  recur  to  the  hiftory  of 
thofe  times  to  difcover,  net  only  the  reafons  which  dictated,. 
but  a  juitification  of  the  acts  of  which  you  complain  ?  If  he 
purfues  the  enquiry  with  pure  motives,  he  will  be  attoniihed, 
sot  that  the  (late  of  New- York  did  fo  much,  but  that  her  mo- 
deration was  as  great  as  it  was.  He  will  recollect,  with  emo- 
tions of  pain  and  indignation,  that  the  ftate  was  not  only  in- 
vaded, and  its  capital,  and  fome  of  its  moll  fertile  diilricts  in 
poiicffion  cf  a  foreign  enemy  ;  but  that  fhe  had  alfo  to  encoun- 
ter a  more  fangainary  foe,  in  thofe,  from  whofe  birth,  fituation* 
and  connection,  me  was  entitled  to  expe£t  fupport  and  fuc- 
cour,  in  her  arduous  conflict  for  independence.  Thefe  men  not 
only  turned  their  arms  againil  their  country,  but,  outi'tripping- 
Britiih  cruelty,  they  introduced  a  warfare,  which  would  have: 
difgfaced  the  favages  of  our  wildernefs.  The  peaceful  farmer — > 
the  aged  inhabitants  of  either  fex,  whofe  years  and  infirmities 
were  refpected  by  the  troops  of  Great-Britain,  and  her  merci- 
lefs  auxiliaries  of  Germany,  found  no  quarter  from  this  im- 
lacable  and  interline  foe.  Their  depredations  were   cireum- 
cribed  by  no  principle  or  rule  of  war — thiriting,  for  revenge* 


I 


OtfNA — No.  If.  Si 

rapine,  plunder  and  fecret  de*.th  were  their  purfuit.  Their  fuc- 
ccis  was  proportionate  to  their  malice.  America  being  unable 
to  extend  her  protection  to  an  immenfe  frontier,  her  citizens 
were  driven  from  their  farms — their  property  made  a  prey  of-, 
and  they  deemed  themfelves  happy,  when  they  could  eicane 
from  aflaffination  into  exile  and  penury.  Our  leas  and  coaits 
fwarmi'd  with  privateers,  fitted  out  by  thefe  internal  enemies  ; 
and  even  the  Indians  of  America  were  piloted  by  them,  to  the 
peaceful  dwellings  of  her  citizens,  and  fcm.de  and  infants' 
fcalps  wire  often  difplayed  as  the  joint  triumph  of  thole  mon- 
gers of  the  human  race  !  Who  then  can  be  zftonifhed,  that 
thefe  provocations,  which  were  repeating  every  day,  fliould 
excite  the  mod  lively  fenfations  of  indignation  and  refentment  ? 
Who  then  can  wonder,  that  our  legislature  fhould  puis  an  act, 
which  was  not  only  extorted  by  a  fenfe  of  injury,  and  th 
igencies  of  the  times,  bur  was  peculiarly  calculated  to  protect 
our  citi'/ens  from  future  plunder,  and  held  cut  a  gleam  of 
hope  to  thofe  who  had  already  been  ftripped  of  their  all,  by 
this  ruthlefs  and  unfeeling  band  ?  Forgive  me,  fir.  if  I  defcribt 
your  prefent  friends  in  glowing  colours.  Humanity  wifhed  to 
forget  forever,  deeds  of  cruelty  and  horror,  at  the  bare  men- 
tion of  which,  the  moft  obdurate  and  rugged  heart  rovolts. 
America  was  content  to  drop  the  curtain  on  a  tragedy,  the 
cataltrophe  of  which  had  confounded  the  adversaries  of  he; 
m  and  fovereigrtty.  This  itate  in  particular,  fjNeW-York  1 
although  her  trade  and  frontiers  had  fuffered  the  molt,  early 
manifested  a  conciliating  and  forgiving  fpirit.  Peffons  who 
had  betrayed  the  moil  rancorous  temper,  and  had  beer 
nifhed  for  their  <jnmity  arid  poverty  of  fpirit,  were  permitted 
to  return  to  the  bofom  of  their  offended  country.  Men  who 
had  evidenced  not  only  in  principle,  but  in  action,  the  molt 
rooted  hoflility  to  our  freedom  and  government,  were  permit 
ted  to  remain,  and  to  become  a  part  of  the  great  bodv  politic. 
In  fiances,  without  number,  of  forbearance,  lenity,  and  even 
of  tendernefs,  forgivenefs,  and  fincerc  reconciliation,  mi^ht  be 
produced  ;  even  rewards  and  public  honors  and  offices  have- 
been  bellowed  on  thefe  men.  Far  from  condemning  a  policy, 
to  which,  however,  there  were  many  objections,  I  glory  in  the 
liberality  and  munificence  of  my  country.  Nor  was  it  my 
wifh  to  refcuc  from  oblivion,  a  memorial  of  the  conduct  of 
thofe  who  have  been  objects  of  their  country's  generofity  and 
forgivenefs.  Camillus  has  courted,  nay  provoked  the  difcuffion. 
When  it  becomes  neceilary  to  exculpate  our  country  from  the 
reproach  of  cruelly  and  breach  of  faith,  we  mult  be  permitted 


?2  Cxna-W.  M 

to  the  tim  Inch,  if  I* 

lli^nia  upon  her.  If  L 

lina- 
rion,  1  of  thcfe  unhappy   men, 

>rnc  lorn,  animadverfioi 

duel  ot*  this  Hate. 
Haying  dated  fome  of  the  provocations  and  inducement?, 
now  to  the  law  itfelf,  in  which  Camillas  difcerns  one 
:  reaches  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  on  our  part;  Ca- 
not  more  unhappy  in  reminding  us  of  the  conduct 
of  the  tories,  than  he  is  unfortunate  in  this  firit  proof  which 
lie  inflauces  of  cur  breach  of  faith.    The  Jaw  to  which  1 
fersj  is  well  known  by  the  appellation  of  the  trefpafs  acl.  This 
the  I -tii   Marchj    178^.  A  mind,   not  warped  by 
difpqfed  to  deceive  itfelf,  is  at  fome  difficulty  to 
,    pa  fled  fix   months   before  the  definitive 
ned,  and  more  than  a  year,  according  to  Camil- 
las, before  .:  binding  on  the  king,  can  be  tortured  in- 
to an  infraction  of  that  very  treaty.     At   the   time  of  parting. 
this   '."•••,    the    legislature  had  a  perfect   right   fo  to  do  ;   nay^ 
it  was  part  cf  their  duty, — the  war  yet  raged  with  unabated  ri- 
gor :  as  the  royal  caufe  became  more  and  more  defperate,   its- 
friends  became  proportionally  alert  in  their  efforts  to  revenge 
a  fuccefs,  to  which  they  could  not  reconcile  themfelves.  Their 
•  !  airs  exceeded  any  of  a  former  date.    Every    meafure. 
nv,  which  tended  to  curb  the  liceni  f  cur  do- 
.,  to  mitiga,te,or  check  the  horrorsof  a  civii  war,  and 
to  protect   thole  o-f  our  citizens  whole  remote  refidence  pre- 
iviug  an,y, adequate  fecuricy  from  tlic  Ameri- 
can army,  was  not  only  prudent,  but  neceflary,  juftifiable,  and 
hum  a                 ■  alio  believed,  that  :c\v,  if  any,  of  the  depreda- 
and  robberies,  which  were  committed  by  the  new  levies 
ere  at  the  time   lV.iietioncd  by  any  military  or- 
r  owq  fury,  and  a  thirlt  for  plunder   and  revenge  led' 
them  on  ;  ypt  if  a  military  order  was  admitted  to  juiiify  their 

n  to  obtain  cue  ?    Every 
man  who  had  iiolen  a  horfe,  a  cpw,  or 
any  authority,  and  converted  the  proceeds  to  his  owii  uf. 
there  w.  re  thoufands  who  pur'fuc,d  no  other    b  v.  ould 

have  fl  lrom.ajun.com]  »n,  under  an  or- 

der, wbicli  ijvghj  'ime  have  been  procured.  The  legif- 

I  w  (for  it  •  tl  of  the  me't  enlighten- 

.'!"  t'e  day,    notwithiiaudir 
■  which  ii  i -f  the  p;o- 


Ci    :  I  —No.  II. 

, i  of  the  act  fhould   clafh  or  interfere  with  any  treaty 
made  with  Great-Britain,   they  would  of  eoarfe  ceafe  to 

ind  that  our  courts  would  give  effeel  to  thofe  ciauf 
ly  which  might  not  undergo  fuch  repeal. 
(    imillus,  it  is  true,  does  not  admit  that 

..•  confederation,  were  paramount  to  iheai 
oS  tin  . 

y  the  pofi 
,   that  it  was  a  "  que  tiro  n  e.  about 

which  thei  this  country  did  c ......  much 

diverfity  of  opinion."     What  is  >•/  any  1  v. 

queftion  of  theory,  I  Bo  not  well  comprehend.     Wl 
law  in  any  particular  cafe,  in  n  country;  wc 

itto  conlider  a  bueftionoi  fa£t  and  not  of  tli 
and  k  that  fuch  (t  be  pro\ 

What  the  law  may  be,  in  any  given  c  fe,  may 
tor  <  f  unc  and  not  known  to  every  one,  but  it  i.  fY.ll  1 

.'.ion  of  iacl,  whether  it  be,    as  dated  by  one   pcrfon   or 

■-.      Where  tl  itv  of  opinion  prevails,   coU 

tie  the  queftibn  ;  and  until  tliis  is  do:: 
muil  I  l  information,  to  our  net 

{he  opinictasxjf  pi  •:■■■  liotwf]  men.   I  do  not  mean  to  adms 
our  coerrs  ha\  lined   the  queiifiO'n  •,    for  it  will  bo 

feen'inthel    |  rid  it  *a  fomewhat  myfterious  tfeut  it  fhould 

have  c leaped  the  p.  nervation  of  Camillus)  that  our  court6  have 
Solemnly  adjudged  iii  iavourof  the  trc.uy,  when  interfering 
with  a  contrary  numieipa!  regulation. 

■  queftion  a  move  minute  exam: 

it  can  be  Ihown,  th.u  all  il.it."  laws,  contravening  the  treaty  of 
peace,  were  thereby  repealed,  and  rendered  null  as  to  their  fu- 
ture operation,  all  the  elaborate  reafoning  of  Camillus,  and  its 
fuperltrutture,  will  be  overthfOWn, and  he  himfelf  be  c. 
led,  however  relu£Untty,  to  impute  the  firft  infliction  to  the 
account  of  Great-Britain.  The  pror  Gtion  is  fo  felf-evident  to 
an  American  lawyer,  that  without  any  proof,  it  forces  the  fame 
conviction  on  his  mind,  as  the  plained  axioms  of  Euclid, 
M  that  the  whole  is  greate*  than  a  part,"  or,  "  that  all  tight* 
equal  to  one  another,"  do  upon  that  cf  a  mathema- 
tician. To  prove  either,  appears  a  work  of  iupererogatkni  j 
however,  as  the  doutf*  is  railed,  we  will  attempt  a  folution 
of  ir. 

By  the  9th  article  of  the  confederation,  "  the  United  ' 
in  congrefs  aflembled,    have  I  {Wright  of  en- 

tering I 


$4  CInmi — N6. 

to  by  this  Hate,  by  a  folemn  act  of  its  legislature,  paSTed  the  6th 
of  February,  1778.  The  people,  therefore,  of  this  lute  were 
r.s  much  parties  to  the  treaty  of  i  I  they  had  been  pre- 

dentin their  proper  perfons,  and  individually  affixed  their  fig- 
natures  to  it.  How  then  could  its  binding  force  upon  them 
ever  become  a  queflion  ?  Has  ( ireat-Britain  ever  entertained 
a  doubt  on  the  fubject  ?  Can  one  party  to  a  contract  annul  it 
without  the  other's  conftnt  ?  Hence  it  follows,  not  only  that 
treaties  made  under  the  confederation,  were  fupreme  laws  of 
the  land,  but  that  they  were  fo  in  a  fenfe  much  more  exten- 
sive and  emphatical  than  could  be  applied  to  an  act  of  the  legif- 
lature.  While  the  latter  could  be  repealed  or  altered,  the  for- 
mer could  no  wife  be  effected  by  a  legislative  act.  Of  little 
force,  therefore,  is  the  cbfervation  of  Camillus,  that  "  in  the 
opinion  of  the  legislature  of  Virginia,  there  were  acts  which 
had  prevented,  and  might  prevent  the  recovery  of  debts,  accor- 
ding to  the  treaty."  The  legislature  of  Virginia  may  make,  but 
cannot  expound  even  its  own  laws,  much  lefs  laws  or  compacts 
to  which  that  (late  was  only  oneoi  many  parties.  Their  exposi- 
tion belongs  folely  and  exclufively  to  the  judicial  department. 
Thefe  (but  perhaps  it  was  unknown  to  Camillus)  are  the  fenti- 
ments  of  the  legillature  of  that  very  Slate.  In  an  act  of  October, 
1787,  it  is  declared,  "  that  it  does  not  belong  to  the  legifla- 
ture to  decide  particular  quellipns,  of  which  the  judiciary  have 
cognizance,  and  that  therefore  it  was  unfit  for  them  to  deter- 
mine on  the  validity  of  certain  payments."  The  opinion,  there- 
fore, of  any  legislature  on  laws  which  already  exiSl,  is  entitled 
to  no  attention  ;  much  lefs  does  fuch  an  opinion  diminish  the 
obligation  or  clhcacy  of  them.  Even  in  paSfing  laws,  if  they 
exceed  their  authority  (which  may  be  the  cafe)  courts  of  jus- 
tice will  difregard  and  refufe  to  carry  them  into  effect.  If  a 
cafe  had  been  cited,  of  the  fupreme  judicial  tribunal  of  Virgi- 
nia rendering  a  judgment  conformable  to  what  is  Slated  as  the 
minion  of  its  legillature,  it  would  have  been  in  point,  and  not 
cafy  to  reconcile  to  the  injunctions  of  the  treaty. 

After  producing  this  opinion,  Camillus  demands,  with  an  air 
of  triumph  and  fatisfaction,  as  if  he  had  detected  mr.  JefFcr- 
fon  in  a  mifreprefentation ;  "  with  what  truth  has  it  been  aflert- 
<-:J,  that  it  was  at  all  times  perfectly  underllood,  that  treaties 
c  mtrouled  the  laws  of,  the  Hates?  Ianfwer,becaufeitcouldnotbc 
otherwife,  and  that  not  only  mr.  Jetferfon,  but  feveral  profef- 
lionai  «vid  other  characters  of  eminence,  whom  he  confulted, 
(for  extennve  as  his  own  experience  was,  he  did  not  think  it 
derogated  from  a  mipifler  of  a  free  nation  to  collect  informa- 


ClNNA— No.    If,  §5 

li'On  from  his  fellow  citizens)  concurred  in  this  opinion.  It  may- 
Well  be  doubted,  whether  any  lawyer  has  ever  ferioully  advo- 
cated a  contrarv  proportion*  "  It  refulted,"  fays  mr.  Jeffer- 
fon,  "  from  the  in  liniment  of  confederation,  among  the  ilates, 
that  treaties  made  by  congrefs,  according  to  the  confederation, 
Were  fuperior  to  the  laws  of  the  ftates.  He  adds,  "we  may 
fafely  affirm  this  to  have  been  the  general  fenfe  of  thofe  at  lead 
who  were  of  the  profeffion  of  the  law."  Mr.  JeiVcrfon,  we  (hall 
fee,  did  not  fpeak  at  random,  nor  without  authority,  nor  is  he 
chargeable  with  the  fmalleft  mifreprefentation-  It  gives  me 
plcafure,  I  confefs,  to  refcue  the  character  of  this  gentleman, 
which  has  forced  the  admiration  of  America*  from  the  afper- 
fions  of  an  anouimous  writer,  whofe  lucubrations  hitherto  may 
be  regarded  rather  as  a  formal  cenfure  of  his  official  conduct, 
than  a  vindication  of  the  Englifh  treaty.  Docs  it  excite  fur- 
prize,  that  Camillas  wilhss  to  render  him  odious  ?  In  his  own 
writings  the  reafon  may  be  discovered-  "  Mr.  JefTerfon,"  fays 
he,  "  is  a  candidate  for  the  presidential  chair!" 

Governor  Collins,  mr.  Channing,  diitric.l  attorneyfor  Rhode* 
ifland,  governor  Huntington,  mr.  Lewis,  ui Uriel  attorney  for 
Pcnnfylvania,  mr.  Monroe,  a  fenator  from  Virginia,  and  now 
minilter  in  France,  and  mr,  Harrifon,  our  diflricl  attorney, 
and  a  gentleman  of  well  earned  legal  reputation,  have  all 
functioned  an  opinion,  which  Camillas  would  fain  pcrfuade  us 
is  a  matter  of  doubt.  The  name  of  Hamilton,  whofe  legal  ac- 
quirements, and  other  fplendid  talents,  have  fo  often  aftonifh- 
ed  his  fellow  citizens,  and  whofe  authority  it  is  prefumed, 
will  not  be  difputed  by  Camillus,  may  alfo  be  added  to  a  lilt 
already  refpectable.  In  the  cafe  of  Waddington  and  Rutgers, 
which  has  been  oftener  mentioned  than  its  importance  defer- 
ved,  he  was  council  for  the  defendant,  and  advifed  his  client  to 
rely  on  the  treaty  of  peace,  which  pica  was  allowed  by  the 
court.  It  will  not  be  impertinent  here  to  notice  a  remark  of 
Camillus,  not  as  a  proof  of  candour,  but  of  his  folicitude  to 
miflead  ;  "  though,"  fays  he,  "  there  may  have  been  no  formal 
decii'jon  oi  our  court*,  enforcing  the  exceptionable  principles 
of  the  trefpafs  act,  yet  there  never  was  a  decifon  of  a  fupreme 
court  againtt  it."  Did  not  Camillus  know,  that  the  fupreme 
court  had  decided  againfh  principles  as  exceptionable  in  other 
acts,  merely  becaufe  they  were  at  war  with  the  treaty  of 
peace  r  1  le  knew  it,  and  it  would  have  been  no  reflection  on 
his  candour  to  have  (tated  the  inltances.  Not  having  done  fo, 
the  following  extract  of  a  letter  from  mr.  Harrifon  to  mr. 
JefTerfon,  v.  ill  remind  him  of  fomc  cafes  in  which  he  was  pro- 

Vol.  III.  N 


%6  Cimxa—  No.  I!. 

bably  concerned  as  counfel  for  one  of  the  parties. — "  Thk 
operation  of  tins  aft,"  fays  he,  fpeaking  of  the  a£t  relative  to 
debts  due  to  perfons  within  the  enemy's  line*',  «'  became  fooa 
after  the  peace,  :i  fubject  of  much  complaint,  grounded  upon 
tint  article  of  the  treaty  which  forbids  any  impediment  to  the, 
recovery  of  the  full  value  in  iterling  money  of  all  bona  fide 
debts,  and  that  which  declares  that  no  perfon  fhall  fuffer  any 
future  lofs  in  his  peribn,  liberty,  or  property.  With  regard  to 
Britifh  creditors,  who  were  fuppofed  to  be  the  proper  objects 
of  the  4th  article  of  the  treaty,  the  fitperior  courts  of  the  ftate 
foon  retrained the  operation  of  the  act,  and  I  do  not  know  of  a  fingle 
infar.ee  w  here  they  have  been  held  to  be  affected  by  it."  Here 
then  we  have  not  only  decifions  of  our  fuperior  courts  in  point, 
but  are  told,  by  a  gentleman  of  great  accuracy,  that  there  i.» 
not  one  inftance  to  the  contrary.  Plow  powerful  is  truth  ! 
deception  may  continue  for  a  day,  but  the  veil  will  foon  be  rent, 
and  fallacy  and  error,  however  fophiitically  arrayed,  will  be 
dripped  of  their  ornaments,  and  expoied  to  public  view.  Let 
this  be  a  caution  to  all  who  read  Camillus,  to  fufpend  their 
opinion  until  his  aiTertions  are  examined.  I  forbear,  for  the 
fake  of  brevity,  to  tranferibe  the  opinions  of  the  other  gentle- 
men who  have  been  named,  although  they  are  equally  ftrong, 
and  more  direct  in  point  than  that  of  mr.  Harrifon.  They  arc 
all  as  pofitive  as  language  could  render  chem,  and  bear  ho- 
norable teftimony  in  favour  of  America.  They  mould  be  con- 
fulted  by  thofe,  who,  like  mr.  Jefferfon,  '*  will  be  glad  to  find 
an  exculpation  of  our  conduct,"  which  is  glanced  at  by  this 
writer  as  a  difmgenuous  trait  in  his  minifterial  career.  Gover- 
nor LivingltuM  alfo,  in  a  letter  dated  15th  June,  1789,  to  the 
fame  minifter,  declares,  that  "  he  does  not  know  2.  fugle  in- 
ftance, in  which  the  ftate  of  New-Jerfey  had  contravened  the 
treaty."  It  would  be  endlefs  to  cite  proofs  on  this  fubject. 

Treaties,  then,  from  the  very  nature  of  our  union,  being  the 
fupreme  l:\ws  of  the  land,  it  refults  neceflarily,  that  its  provisions 
could  not  be  controuled  by  the  laws  of  any  ftate,  and  that  no  one 
could  reafonably  complain  of  the  exiilence  of  fuch  acts,  which, 
bv  the  treaty,  were  rendered  nugatory,  until  obedience  to  them 
was  enforced  by  the  courts  to  whom  the  expofition  of  fuch 
acts  and  treaties  was  delegated.  Let  Camillus  produce  a  fingle 
inftance  of  the  fupreme  judiciary  of  any  ftate  rendering  judg- 
ment contrary  to  the  plain  fenfe  of  the  treaty — until  fuch  ex- 
amples are  produced,  it  becomes  us  to  defend  our  country  from 
the  unjult  imputations  of  the  Britifh  miniitry  and  their  agents, 
and  not  by  iubtile  and  fine-fpun  diftin&JQUS  and  doubts,  give 


Cinxa — No.  II. 

«Jiicacyto  their  calumnies.  Among  the  fubterfuges,  calculated 
to  fix  a  reproach  upon  the  United  Str.tes,  may  be  clafied  die 
remark  of  Camillus,  that,  «  under  the  confederation,  they 
had  no  courts  of  their  own  to  expound  and  enforce  their  trea- 
ties as  laws."  We  are  at  a  lofs  which  to  cenfure  molt  in  this 
obfervation;  its  want  of  candour,  or  the  unqualified  reflection 
it  carries  with  it  on  the  ftate  judiciaries.  If  treaties  were  laws 
of  the  land,  which,  perhaps,  was  never  ferioufly  doubted,  were 
not  the  ftate  judges,  then,  as  much  as  the  federal  judges  are 
now,  fworn  and  bound  to  conform  to,  and  make  them  the  rule 
of  their  decifions  ?  He  fubjoins,  with  becoming  delicacy,  "it 
was  believed  that  a  majority  of  our  fupreme  court  bench  would 
over-rule  the  plea  of  a  military  order."  How  was  this  difcoyery 
made?  did  the  judges  favour  him  v.  ith  an  extra-judicial  * 
nion  ?  or  was  he  gifted  with  the  fpirit  of  divination  ?  Thus,  be- 
lief, furmifes,  and  fufpicions  mult  be  reforted  to,  to  fix  upon 
our  ftate,  the  ignominious  charge  of  breaking  her  folemn  cv 
ments  with  foreign  powers.  To  the  credit  of  our  bench,  it 
ought  to  be  mentioned,  that  it  has,  ever  fince  the  peace,  been 
filled  with  characters  of  the  molt  unblemifhed  reputation  and 
integrity,  and  that  the  confidence  infpircd  by  their  decifions, 
has  been  fo  great,  that  perhaps  in  no  Hate  in  the  union,  is  lefs 
bufinefs  done  in  the  federal  court,  than  in  New- York.  It 
would  hardly  receive  credit,  was  I  to  mention  how  very  few 
civil  actions  have  been  commenced  in  thefe  courts,  fince  their 
organization  in  this  ftate. 

It  cannot  be  necefiary  to  follow  Camillus  through  his  in- 
vidious enumeration  of  the  other  acts  of  this,  and  other  ll,  res, 
which  he  confiders  as  violations  of  the  treaty  ;  the  fame  anfwer 
applies  to  all.  The  treaty  could  not  be  controuied  by  any  (tare 
law  ;  but  it  is  alleged,  that  in  fome  cafes,  repealing  acts  were 
deemed  nccefTary  by  the  legiflatures  of  the  different  ftates. 
This  does  not  alter  the  cafe.  It  was  done  for  the  greater  cau- 
tion, and  furnilhcs  proofs  of  a  fincere  fpirit  of  accommodation. 
In  fome  ftate-,  a  repeal  would  probably  not  have  taken  place, 
if  their  legiflatures  had  not  obferved  the  laws  in  queftion  had 
already  yielded  to  the  fuperior  mandates  of  the  treaty. 

But  admitting,  for  a  moment,  that  legal  impediments  once 
cxilted  to  the  recovery  of  Eritiih  debts,  will  it  be  contended 
that  they  continued  to  operate  at  the  time  of  the  negociation 
between  mr.  Jay  and  lord  Crenville  ?  if  not,  why  fear  to  meet 
the  queftion,  and  difcufs  the  reipcclive  claims  of  the  two  coun- 
tries ?  If  America  had  done  wrong,  what  could  Great-Britain 
deure  more,  than  a-  rcdrefs  of  die  injury  which  had  already 


85  Cimna— No.  II. 

uken  place?  mr.  Jay  could  have  informed  lord  GrcnvinV,  with 
confidence,  that  for  fix  years  paft,  our  courts  were  open  to  ' 
Britiih  creditors,  and  that  probably  few,  if  any,  remained  un- 
fltisfied.  This  would  not  have  pleafed  his  lordlhip.  Knowing 
that  Great-Britain  had  nothing  at  pre  fen  t  to  complain  of,  and 
that  our  demands  were  of  the  molt  ferious  and  extenfive  na- 
ture, he  feduloufly  avoided  a  difcuffion,  which  a  mere  novice 
in  diplomatic  controverfy,  could  have  managed  on  our  part,  fo 
as  to  refute  every  poflible  objection  of  his  lordfliip.  livery  "  en- 
lightened American,"  therefore,  cannot  but  regard  the  pre- 
tended apprehenfions  of  our  envoy  to  meet  fo  plain  a  queition, 
as  a  bafe  dereliction  of  his  country's  honor,  as  a  mean  facri- 
fice  of  her  rights 5  as  an  ill-timed  delicacy,  and  as  a  moil 
unwarrantable  conceffion  to  Great-Britain. 

New~Ybri,  Auguf  9M,  1795.  CINNA. 

P.  S-  It  has  been  thought  belt  to  fubfoin  the  opinions  of  the 
gentlemen  above  referred  to;  they  harmonize,  anil  are  (o  much 
in  point,  that  we  fhall  find  it  impofiible  to  withhold  our  aileni 
from  mr.  Jefferfon's  propofition  in  its  gpeatoft  latitude,  "  that 
treaties  made  by  congrefs,  according  to  the  confederation, 
were  fuperior  to  the  laws  of  any  Itate." 

Governor  Collins  fays,  "  the  treaty,  in  all  its  abfolute  parts, 
has  been  fully  complied  with  ;  and  to  thofe  parts  that  are 
merely  recommendatory,  and  depend  upon  the  legifative  Jifcretion-, 
the  mod  candid  attention  has  been  paid  •"  plainly  implying, 
fays  mr.  Jefferfon,  that  the  abfolute  parts  did  not  depend  upon 
the  legislative  discretion, 

Mr.  Channing,  fpeaking  of  an  act  pafled  before  the  treaty, 
fays,  M  this  act  was  conhdered  by  our  court,  as  annulled  by  the 
treaty  of  peace. 

Governor  Huntington  fays,  "  the  courts  of  juftice  adopted 
the  treaty  as  a  principle  of  the  law." 

Mr.  Lewis — "  the  judges  have  uniformly  and  without  hef* 
tntion  declared  in  favour  of  the  treaty,  on  the  ground  of  its  be- 
ing the  fupremc  la<w  of  the  la7id." 

Mr.  Monroe — "  both  court  and  counfel,  in  Virginia,  avow- 
ed the  opinion,  that  the  treaty  would  eoutroul  any  law  of  the 
ftate  oppofed  to  it." 

The  fenators  and  reprefentatives  in  congrefs  from  Maryland* 
in  a  note  to  mr.  Jefferfon,  inform  him,  "  that  the  legiflature 
of  Maryland,  enacted  a  law  declaring  the  treaty  the fuprcme  laiu 
of  the  land,  which  was/'  they  add,  *'  but  a  compliance  in  form 


ClNXA — No.  in.  &> 

with  what  had,  \r\  effect,  taken  place,  immediately  after  ths  <rif- 
change  of  the  ratifications  of  the  definitive  treaty." 

William  Tiighman,  a  lawyer  of  Maryland,  writes  as  follows : 
"  we  have  recognized  the  treaty  as  the  law  of  the  land,  by  a 
particular  act  of  aflembly  \  and  our  judges  have  given  one  vcrv 
linking  proof  of  their  impartiality  in  the  contraction  of  it.  I 
allude  to  the  decifion  of  the  general  court  in  favor  of  Britifh 
creditors,  againft  a  number  oi  Maryland  citizen1?,  who,  during 
the  war,  depofited  paper  money  in  the  trcafury,  under  the  fanc- 
tion  of  a  law,  at  that  time  exiiting,  in  fatisf  action  of  their  debts: 
whether  the  treaty  fhould  have  fuch  rctrofpecr,  as  to  avoid  thefc 
payments,  was  certainly  a  doubtful  point." 

If  theft  inftances,  an  enumeration  of  which  would  have  Ou- 
cahoned  no  "tedious  refearch,"  (mr.  Jefferfon  having  been  at 
the  pains  of  collecting  them)  do  not  diffipate  the  doubts  of 
Camillus,  if  he  realiy  entertains  any,  neither  will  he  believe, 
rf  one  rife  from  the  dead.  It  affords  matter  for  ferious  reflec- 
tion, that  the  talents  of  this  gentleman,  fhould  be  lb  Itrenuoully 
e-xerted  to  traduce  his  country,  when  ample  materials,  were  at 
hand,  not  only  for  exculpation,  but  for  eulogy  and  commen- 
dation. 

Augift,  toffy  i-o?.  CINNA» 


— >®><^-S>>S>^><S>  *><s><^ — 


C  I  N  N  A— No.  IU. 


IF  Camillus,  inftead  of  vindicating  mr.  Jav,  at  the  expenfe 
of  his  country's  faith,  had  recurred  to  his  oilicial  reports, 
while  fecretary  for  foreign  affairs,  an  apology  would  have  pre- 
fentcd  itfelf,  not  quite  lb  grateful  perhaps  to  the  pride  of  his 
friend;  but  lefs  conftrained,  and  more  agreeable  to  truth,  than 
the  one  which  he  has  afligned.  It  is  well  known  that  mr.  Ja\  , 
while  at  the  head  of  that  department,  either  from  want  of  in- 
formation, or  from  taking  a  lefs  comprehenfive  view  of  the 
fubject  than  his  fucceliur  did,  or  from  fome  other  lefs  pardon- 
able motive,  in  very  unqualified  language,  not  only  excufed 
Great-Britain  for  her  infraction  of  the  treaty,  but  threw  the 
whole  cenfure  on  this  country.  It  was  cafily  foreleen  that  the 
ncgociation   in  die  hands  of  a  man,  thjis  committed,  muile'- 


fO  ClNN'X-— Nc.    III. 

if 
ther  prove  abortive,  or  terminate,  as  it  has  done,  ciifiiom 
ro  America.  A  virtuous  minority  in  the  Senate,  vemonftrated 
ill  v.iin  againft  an  appointment  which  was  not  only  a  direct 
attack  upon  the  conititution,  by  deftroying  the  independence 
of  the  judiciary,  but  which,  from  the  character  of  the  en 
gured  nothing  but  difappointment  and  ignominy.  Mr.  j 
hoflility  to  the  French  revolution  was  alio  well  known.  This 
enmity  betrayed  itfelf,  not  only  in  his  more  private  fentiments 
and  converfation,  but  was  molt  confpieuoufiy  difpiayed  in  the 
libel,  which  lie,  in  concert  with  one  of  our  fenators,  publifii- 
eft  againft  the  minider  of  that  republic.  The  man  if  eft  object 
of  that  too-celebrated  certificate  was  to  difcredit  the  French 
caufe,  and  to  cxtinguifh  that  euthufiaftic  ardour  for  its  fuccpfs, 
which  had  become  almoft  univerfal  in  the  United  States.  The 
attack  upon  mr.  Genet  terminated  unfortunately  and  difrepu- 
tably  for  the  contrivers  of  it  :  it  was  not  therefore  to  be  expected 
that  a  man  (whofe  very  friends  impute  to  him,  a  temper  border- 
ingon  the  vindictive)  ftiould  ever  forgive  the  triumph  of  a  mi~ 
nifter,  who  not  only  exonerated  himfclf  from  the  charge,  but  in 
a  manner  the  moil  public  and  unequivocal,  convicted  his  an« 
tagonifts  of  having  propagated  a  deliberate  mifreprefentation. 
It  will  be  recollected,  that  mr.  Jay's  civti  witnefs  proved  the 
innocence  of  mr.  Genet.  What  could  America  look  for  from 
an  envoy,  whofe  mind  had  been  recently  embittered  againft 
the  French,  by  a  perfonal  defeat,  but  as  many  marks  of  animo- 
fity  towards  that  people  as  could  decently  be  inferted  in  a  pub- 
lic treaty.  Thefe  observations  may  at  firit  appear  impertinent, 
and  nowife  connected  with  the  merits  of  the  treaty;  but  when 
Camillas,  and  every  other  writer  in  favor  of  it,  uniformly  re- 
prefent  mr.  Jay  as  the  propereft  man  in  America  to  have  been 
entrufted  with  the  negotiation,  and  hence  infer  that  it"  cannot 
be  bad,  it  becomes  ufeful  to  examine  the  pofition,  and  to  {how, 
as  has  been  done,  that  a  more  unfit  character  could  not  have 
been  lent  upon  fo  important  an  embafjy. 

It  may  be  f.iid,  the  documents  afterwards  collected  by  die 
induftry  of  mr.  Jcfferfon,  and  his  maiterly  reafoning  upon 
them,  placed  the  queflions,  which  had  been  conceded  by  mr. 
]av,  in  alight  which  diflipated  all  objections,  and  carried  con- 
viction to  every  unprejudiced  mind.  That  mr.  Jay,  therefore, 
,-ould  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  bring  forward  the  argumei 
which  had  already  been  managed  with  fo  much  fuccefs  by  the. 
American  fecre'.ary.  But  thoic  who  reafon  in  this  way,  for 
how  difficult  it  is  for  a  man  who  {lands  committed  on  record, 
to  renounce  lus  errors.  From  pride  of  opinion,,  and  inordinate 


ClN^A—  No.    Ill  $t 

felf-eiteem,  no  one  is  exempt ;  how  then  were  we  to  hope  that 
mr.  Jay,  after  hazarding  opinions  on  this  fide  of  the  Atlantic, 
which  had  already  proved  the  bane  of  his  country,  in  all  her 
fubfequent  negociations  with  Great-Britain,  mould  recede  im- 
mediately on  his  arrival  at  the  court  of  St.  James's,  where  every 
pains  and  flattery  would  be  praetifed,  to  keep  him  in  good  hu- 
mour ?  Befules,  his  fentiments  being  in  poffellion  of  the  Biitiih 
miniftejr,  might  be  ufed  to  great  advantage,  if  he  attempted  to 
change  his  ground.  Rather,  therefore,  than  recede  at  the  ex- 
penfe  of  his  reputation,  and  at  a  certainty  of  being  (elf-convic- 
ted of  contradiction  and  inconfiftency,  every  fubtility  and  fi- 
nefle  would  be  put  in  ufe,  and  in  the  lafl  refort,  the  interefts 
•  of  America  would  be  regarded  as  a  fmall  facrifice  to  perfonal 
honor.  The  envoy  well  knew,  that  however  important  thefe  fa- 
crifices  might  be,  men  would  not  be  wanting  to  applaud  the 
wicked  deed,  and  to  blazen  to  the  world  his  palt  fervices  and 
patriotifm.  The  event  has  correfponded  with  his  expectation?. 
Inftead  of  declaring,  which  would  have  been  the  language  of 
finccrity  and  candor,  that  it  was  impoffible  for  mr.  Jay,  who 
was  already  committed,  to  invite  a  difcuffion  with  the  Bricifh  ca- 
binet, every  deception  is  praetifed  to  impofe  upon  the  public, 
a  belief  that  fuch  difcuffion,  in  the  hands  of  any  one,  muft 
have  been  inaufpicious  to  the  United  States,  and  the  efforts  of 
mr.  Jeflerfon,  to  refcue  us  from  the  bafe  imputation  of  his  prc- 
decetlor  in  office,  are  contemptuoufly  ftiled  "  a  mere  effay  of 
polemical  ilcill,  or  a  convenient  ingredient  of  negociation." 

Citizens  of  America!  be  on  your  guard.  Since  the  epoch  ot 
your  independence,  a  more  important  crifis  than  the  prefent, 
never  prefented  itfelf.  To  entice  you  into  an  approbation  of  a 
compact  too  degrading  to  be  vindicated,  arts,  as  bafe  as  the 
inftrument  itfelf,  are  put  in  practice — your  confidence  in  a 
miniftcr,  who  never  cftafed  to  defend  your  rights,  and  who 
was  forced  from  his  high  ftation  by  the  prevalence  of  a  Britifh, 
faction,  is  attempted  to  be  fhaken.  His  manly  and  energetic 
expcfition  of  your  violated  rights  is  turned  into  ridicule — his 
candor  is  impeached,  and  his  patriotic  labours  in  your  fervicq 
are  branded  as  the  offspring  of"  hollowncfs  and  fallacy."  Men, 
like  thefe,  are,  if  you  follow  the  pernicious  counfel  of  Camillus, 
to  be  '«  expelled  from  your  confidence."  Thefe  are  the  men  a- 
gainft  whom  you  are  cautioned,  as  laying  "  artful  fnarcs  for 
your  peace  !"  Are  unfupported  fuggeltions,  like  thefe,  the  e flu - 
lions  of  patriotifm  and  virtue  ?  Do  they  not  betray,  notwiths- 
tanding a  thfcrofartd  profeflions  to  the  contrary,  a  mind  hoilile 
to  your  internal  peace,  and  tainted  with  the  corruptions  of  4 


£2  -      GfttXJ — No.   III. 

Bitirti  court!  If  you  purfue  fuch  intemperate  advice,  and 
from  your  confidence,  men  of  the  defcription  glanced  at  by 
Camillus,  where  will  the  cxpulfion  end?  a  profcription  more 
dreadful  than  that  of  Robefpierre  will  fucceed.  The  firft  and 
beft  patriots  of  America  will  fall  victims,  and  all  to  gratify  the 
infatiablc  ambition  of  a  few  afpiring  individuals,  who  can 
brook  no  oppofition,  and  unlefs  they  can  controul  public  af- 
fairs, are  perpetually  duTeminating  calumnies,  and  fowing  the 
feeds  of  civil  diffention  and  difcord.  This  i".  remarkably  the  cafe 
with  the  writer,  whofe  defence,  as  it  is  hitherto  ludicroufly 
termed,  has  occafioncd  thefe  remarks.  His  preliminary  obfev- 
vations,  and  but  little  elfe  has  yet  appeared  in  his  firft  fix 
numbers,  are  calculated  to  imprefs  a  belief,  that  an  oppofi- 
tion to  the  treaty  originated  with  the  perfonal  enemies  of  mr. 
Jay,  or  with  thole  who  have  been  uniformly  oppofed  to  the 
general  government.  Thefe  remarks  partake  more  of  intempe- 
rance and  illibcrality  than  of  argument.  As  an  addrefs  to  the 
paiTions,  they  may  be  overlooked,  but  if  they  are  defigned  to 
convince  our  reafon,  we  turn  from  them  with  pity  and  con- 
tempt. "What,  fir,  are  the  perfonal  enemies  of  mr.  jay  difperf- 
ed  from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other  ?  Many  refpee- 
table  names,  who  (land  foremoft  in  the  oppofition,  are,  or  have 
been,  his  friends.  They  regret  the  wounds  which  his  feelings 
muft  fuftain  by  their  oppofition  to  an  alTociation  in  which  he 
'«as  borne  fo  confpicuous  a  part ;  but  the  calls  of  patriotifm  have 
ftifled  thofe  of  friendfhip,  and  it  is  a  circumftance,  certainly 
not  favourable  to  the  treaty,  that  many  men,  who  had  been  in 
the  habits  of  intimacy,  and  of  thinking  well  of  mr.  Jay,  have 
been  moft  undifguifed  in  their  expreffions  againfl  it.  That  mr. 
Jay  has  his  perfonal  enemies,  is  not  doubted ;  no  man  is  with- 
out them  ;  and  perhaps  it  would  be  difficult  to  affign  any  good 
reafon  why  he  fho  ild  be  exempt  from  this  common  lot  of  hu- 
manity :  but  that  thefe  enemies  have  invariably  arrayed  them- 
fclves  under  the  banners  of  oppofition,  remains  for  Camillus 
to  prove. 

The  other  aflertion  is  lefs  excufable,  becaufe  Camillus  well 
knew,  that  among  thofe  who  oppofed  the  treaty,  were  fome 
of  the  belt  friend-  to  the  national  government  j  fome  who- 
had  not  only  figned,  but  had  ever  warmly  fupported  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  The  names  of  Langdon,  Pinck- 
ney  and  Rutledge,  appear  to  the  conftitutiou  of  the  United 
.  I  ihou'td  preve  is  tedious  as  Camillus,  were  I  to  enu- 
merate all  the  ixa/bai  "n  occur  of  the  mod  zealous  fe- 
ifts,  who  hare  every  where  appeared  among  the  oppofcrs 


CiNNA— No.  III. 


93 


*f  this  infamous  compact.  Not  only  the  political  characters, 
but  the  meafures  purfued  by  thofe  who  condemn  the  treaty, 
have  fallen  under  the  laih  of  his  pen.  No  excufe  can  be  offer- 
ed for  his  mifreprefentations  on  this  fubject — -That  the  town 
meeting  of  Bolton  denounced  it  the  very  day  after  its  arrival, 
and,  without  a  reading,  is  an  aflertion  directly  oppofed  to  all 
the  teftimony  we  have  of  their  proceedings.  The  account  of 
our  own  town-meeting,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
obtained,  is  too  grofs  to  impofe  on  any  of  the  citizens  of  New- 
York.  Who  are  intended  by  the  "  leaders  of  the  clubs"  who 
were  feen  harranging  at  every  corner,  to  ftir  up  the  citizens  o£ 
to  imitate  the  example  of  Boiton,  I  am  at  a  lofs  to  afecrtain. 
Some  of  the  moll  active  enemies  of  the  treaty  belong  to  ncr 
club  at  all ;  and  inftead  of  taking  pains  to  induce  the  citizens 
•to  aflemble.  fuch  was  the  univerfal  execration  in  which  the 
treaty  was  regarded  in  New- York,  that  it  was  with  fome  dif- 
ficulty the  meeting  was  poftponed  to  fo  late  a  day.  That  a 
refpcTiable  kdy  of  the  merchants  endeavoured  to  moderate 
this  violence,  and  promote  a  fpirit  favourable  to  difcuffion, 
comports  as  little  with  the  fact  as  fevcral  of  the  aflertion* 
which  have  been  already  noticed.  The  truth  is,  that  two  or 
three  zealous  partifans,  alarmed  at  the  increasing  oppofition, 
and  jealous  of  the  effect  which  a  legal  and  peaceable  expref- 
fion  of  our  fentiments  might  have  on  the  prefident,  collected* 
in  great  hafte,  and  at  a  late  hour  of  the  night,  a  few  merchants', 
refpeetable  neither  for  their  numbers,  their  patriotifm,  nor 
abilities.  It  is  in  the  power  of  Camillus  to  give  their  names 
to  the  public,  who  will  then  judge  between  him  and  me.  Thefe 
merchants  lent  their  names  to  an  addrefs  prepared,  probably 
by  their  leader,  and  containing  a  proportion  as  abfurd  as  it 
was  irifiduous.  The  citizens  of  New-York  had  too  much, 
good  fenfe  to  be  the  dupes  of  it ;  they  difcovered,  in  the  pro- 
pofal  to  difcufs,  not  only  a  reflection  on  their  understandings, 
but  a  jefuitical  contrivance  to  procraftinate,  until  it  became 
too  late,  a  decifion  on  a  fubje£t  too  momentous  to  their  in- 
terefts,  to  be  longer  delayed.  When  would  the  difcuflion  have 
ended?  A  few  days  after  this  meeting,  the  defence  of  Camillus 
appeared,  and  he  has  not  yet  finifhed  the  firfl  article  ! — The 
citizens,  therefore,  after  having  maturely  confidered  the  trea- 
ty, and  attended  to  a  difculfion  which  it  had  undergone  for 
more  than  three  weeks  in  the  public  prints,  affembled,  it  is 
true,  not  to  liften  to  a  "  refpettable  body  of  lawyers  or  tiwr- 
mants"  but  to  unite  with  their-fellow  citizens  of  Bolton  in 
Vol.  Ill,      '  O 


54  Cinna — No.  III. 

an  addrefs  to  the  prefident  againft  its  ratification.  In  num- 
bers, refpectability,  good  order,  and  decorum,  no  aflembly  in 
this  city  ever  exceeded  the  one  which  took  place  on  the  day 
when  the  refolutions  were  agreed  to. 

Before  this  meeting  is  difmifled,  I  muft  be  permitted  to 
advert  to  certain  mealures  which  have  been  purfued  by  a  par- 
ty in  this  city  in  confeque.^cc  of  it.  The  refolutions  were 
fcarcely  fent  on  to  the  prefident,  before  ferious  attempts  were 
made,  not  only  to  reprefent  the  meeting  as  illegal,  turbulent, 
and  unconltitutional,  but  to  incite  our  fellow-citizens  to  n 
belief,  that  meafures  were  adopting  to  overthrow  the  govern- 
ment, and  to  introduce  anarchy  and  confufion.  With  this 
view,  invitations  were  fecretly  diftributed  among  the  iriends 
of  order,  to  meet  privately  and  in  the  night.  The  firft  meet- 
ing was  fo  very  thin,  that  it  was  thought  prudent  not  to  pro- 
ceed to  bufinefs — a  fecond  attempt  was  made,  which  fucceed- 
ed  but  little  better.  After  fending  away  thofe  who  were  lup- 
pofed  not  to  harmonife  in  fentiment  with  the  leaders,  the 
bufinefs  was  opened — Philippic  fucceeded  philippic  againft: 
thofe  who  had  exerciled  a  right,  fecured  to  them  by  the  con- 
ftitution of  the  United  States,  of  "  afilmbling  peaceably,  and 
petitioning  government."  Every  art,  feconded  by  all  tht  pow- 
ers oi  eloquence,  was  praclifed  to  infufe  the  molt  horrid  luf- 
picions  into  their  minds  againft  their  abfent  fellow-citizens. 
The  refult  was,  as  has  been  afierted,  and  not  contradicted, 
a  determination  to  fign  an  inftruir.ent,  pledging  thr.mfelves  to 
each  other  to  fupport  the  government  and  conftitution  of  the 
United  States. — To  carry  into  effect  fo  laudable  an  aflbciation, 
committees  are  to  be  appointed  in  each  ward,  to  call  upon 
the  citizens  for  their  fignature. 

Citizens  of  New- York  !  be  not  rafh  or  precipitate — this 
aflbciation,  which  at  firft  view  appears  harmlefs  and  even 
praife-worthy,  is  big  with  confequences,  fatal  to  your  inter- 
nal peace  and  happinefs.  Are  we  not  already  under  the  folemn 
tics  of  an  oath  to  fupport  the  conftitution  and  laws  of  ouV 
country  ?  Is  it  not  our  intereft  fo  to  do  ?  Notwithftanding 
the  wicked  calumnies  of  our  enemies,  have  we  ever  discover- 
ed in  our  words  or  actions,  a  fpirit  hoftile  to  the  one  or  the 
other  ?  Have  we  ever  fince  the  adoption  of  the  conftitution, 
oppofed  any  laws  of  the  United  States?  Have  we  not,  on  the 
contrary,  manifefted  a  patriotic  jealoufy,  upon  every  occafion, 
when  attempts  have  been  made  to  violate  its  facred  injunctions? 
Becaufe  then,  in  thi<  awful  crifis,  we  came  forward,  and  united 
#ur  warning  voice  with  that  of  America,  againft  a  compact 


ClNNA — No.  III.  P5 

fraught  with  deftruction,  are  we  to  be  ftigmatifed  as  anar- 
chilts  ? — are  we  to  be  feparated  from  our  feiiow-citizens,  and 
pointed  at  as  feditious  enemies  of  our  country  ?  Can  thofe 
who  advife  you  to  ib  invidious  a  proceeding,  be  actuated  by 
friend  ihip  for  you,  or  a  zeal  for  the  public  good  ?  Are  not  ra- 
ther perlonat  aggrandizement  and  importance,  their  real  ob- 
jects ?  Uuaccuftomcd  to  the  fmalletl  controul,  they  had  ra- 
ther arm  citizen  againft  citizen,  than  fink  peaceably  into  ob- 
fcurity,  or  experience  a  difappointment  in  a  fingle  icheoie  of 
their  projection.  Let  thofe,  therefore,  who  wifh  to  increafe 
the  diflention  which  already  unhappily  prevails  in  this  city, 
and  ih  ric  only,  countenance  this  affociation.  To  aflc  a  fellow- 
citizen  to  fig;,  it,  carries  with  it  an  infult,  and  will  probably 
be  regarded  and  refentcd  as  fuch  by  the  greater  part  oi  die 
community.  Such  a  requeft  muft  proceed  from  fuipicions  of 
their  patriotism  or  honefly.  Goc  1  men  want  no  additional 
lie,  b  I  men  will  difregard  any.  To  t;ie  honor  of  mr.  Will- 
cocks,  it  ought  to  be  mentioned,  that  he  vcncmently  oppofed, 
but  without  effect,  noclurni.il  meetings  of  that  nature,  and  ex- 
patiated, at  fome  length,  on  their  dangerous  tendency. 

Alter  unwearied  pains  to  prejudice  his  readers  againft  the 
advciiaries  of  the  propofed  treaty — Camiilus  proceeds  to 
alarm  our  fears,  and  to  compel  us  {to  ufe  his  own  expreffipn) 
to  "  furrender  our  reafon  to  the  empire  of  our  paflions."  The 
horrors  of  war  are  prefented  to  the  affrighted  imagination,  ng 
the  certain  confequences  of  a  rejection  of  thi*  treaty  by  Ameri- 
ca. What,  fir  !  is  the  treaty  fo  fundamentally  bad,  that  nothing 
but  an  apprehenficn  of  the  wafte  of  war,  and  a  dilplay  of  tor- 
rents of  human  blood,  can  reconcile  us  to  it?  but  whence  the 
probability  of  a  war?  will  Great-Britain,  exhaufted  as  fhe  is  by 
her  eonteit  with  France,  be  anxious  to  make  new  enemies  ? 
Will  herfubjecls  urge  her  to  the  conflict?  Will  they  not  rather, 
as  they  have  already  done,  take  the  part  of  America  and  en- 
deavour to  compel  the  miniltry  to  reafonable  terms  of  accom- 
modation ?  Is  our  commerce  an  object  of  no  importance  to 
Great-Britain  ?  Is  the  aid  we  could  furnifli  to  the  French  in 
the  reduction  of  the  Welt-India  iflands,  a  matter  of  no  mo- 
ment ?  But  if  a  war  muit  take  place,  before  our  differences 
can  be  adjufted,  will  it  be  an  advantage  to  America  to  poit- 
pone  it  until  a  general  peace  takes  place  in  Europe  ?  Will  not 
Great-Britain  alone  gain  by  the  delay  ?  Nothing  but  our  ex- 
treme pulillanimity  will  ever  involve  us  in  a  war  with  Great- 
Britain.  We  ihall  permit  her,  by  our  tamenefc  and  fubmiifidn 
to  proceed  ib  far  that  ihe  will  hardly  know  how  to  recede  with 


gfi  ClNNA — No.    TV. 

honor.  It  is  a  fact,  that  at  this  moment,  iue  experience  more 
than  one  half  of  the  evils  of  a  fate  of  iiuir,  without  deriving 
from  it  any  one  of  its  advantages  ,•  patience  under  our  accumu- 
lated infult  and  injuries,  is  magnified  by  Camillas  into  a 
"  dignified  moderation,"  and  our  "  government,"  by  its 
mean  fubmiflion  to  a  licentious  tyrant  (whole  depredations 
on  the  ocean  exceed  thofe  of  the  pirates  of  Barbary)  has  "  ac- 
quired," according  to  this  writer,  «  a  new  elevation."  Would 
to  heaven  the  evils  we  have  to  complain  of,  were  paft  !  we 
might  then  eftimate  the  cofts,  and  it  might  be  prudent  not 
to  hazard  a  war  for  the  fake  of  compenfation.  But  the  inju- 
ries we  have  remonftratcd  againft,  are  repeating  and  incrcaf- 
ing  every  day.  Our  {hips  are  daily  captured,  oar  feamen  im- 
preflcd,  our  public  difpatches  opened,  and  our  very  harbours 
afford  no  protection  to  the  minifter  of  an  ally  •,  and  yet  with 
this  defpot  we  are  to  form  an  unequal  treaty.  Our  blood 
freezes  with  horror,  at  a  bare  mention  of  the  unnatural  con- 
nection ;  and  yet  to  bring  it  about,  our  constitution  muft  be 
violated,  our  characters  and  rights  proftrated — outrage  and 
infult  muft  be  ignominioufly  fubmitted  to — American  honor 
muft  receive  a  ftain  too  foul  ever  to  be  effaced — and  public 
confidence  a  wound  which  will  baffle  the  healing  powers  of 
time.  Rouie,  then,  citizens  of  America  !  exercife,  before  it 
be  too  late,  an  alienable  right.  Convey  to  the  prefident,  in 
fair,  but  refpectful  language,  your  fentiments  on  the  impend- 
ing danger.  He  will  liften  to  the  voice  of  his  fellow  citizens, 
and  paufe  beiore  he  barters  away  their  dear-bought  privi- 
leges. 

Auguflu,  1795.  CINNA. 


CINN  A.— No.  IV. 


CAN  there  be  a  flrongcr  proof  of  the  demerits  of  the  trea- 
ty, than  the  mode  which  is  purfued  by  Camillus  in  its 
defence?  Inftead  of  proceeding  directly  to  a  difcuffion  of  the 
different  articles,  his  readers  are  not  permitted  to  form  a  judg- 
ment until  they  are  fatisfied  that  Britain  has  been  as  imma- 
culate as  fhe  IS  haughty  and  powerful  — That  America,  Inning 
been  treacherous,  ought  to  be  as  humble  and  fubmifliveas  fhe 
is  weal;  and  defencelefs — That  the  opponents,  to  a  man,  an: 


CiNKA — No.  IV.  97 

nchiated  By perfonal malignity  towards  mr.  Jav,  or  a  wicked  de- 
fire  to  overthrow  the  government,  and  introduce  dtiarchy  and 
civil  difcord — and,  that  a  war  with  Grear'-Britain  will  be  the 
inevitable  confcquence  of  a  rejection.  Thcfe  remarks  h.w 
ready  been  oppofed  by  others,  which,  unlefs  I  miilake,  have 
not  only  detected  their  fophiftry,  but  expbfed  their  pernicious 
fendeucv.   Admitting  all  thefe  matters  to  be  ex,'  .ted 

by  Camillus,  how  do  they  juftify  an  inference  that  the  treaty 
is  a  good  one  ?  They  may  prove  that  Great-Britsfin  cannot  be 
expecled  to  make  an  equal  commercial  connection  With  this 
country  ;  but  will  it  thence  follow,  that  we  are  bound  to  make 
a  difadvantagcous  one  with  her  ?  No  opinion  is  better  found- 
ed, or  prevails  more  univerfally,  than  that  the  fewer  European 
connections  wc  form  the  better.  We  pdflefs  the  means  of  a 
growing  and  extenfive  commerce.  The  articles  we  export, 
•particularly  proviiions  and  rav  materials,  being  of  the  firft  nc- 
cefTity  towards  the  fupport  and  manufactures  of  other  coun- 
tries, there  is  no  danger  of  not  finding  a  market  for  them.  To 
Britain,  in  particular,  our  commerce  is  of  the  highell  impor- 
tance. In  return  for  the  manufactures  which  we  take  from 
her  European  dominion's*  wc  fend  her  proviiions  and  raw  ma- 
terials. Th  !  balance,  which  is  generally  againft  us,  we  pay  in 
fpecie.  It  will,  therefore,  certainly  be  her  interelt  ami  policy 
to  continue  and  extend  a  trade  fo  lucrative  and  important, 
without  a  treaty.  If  flie  choofes  to  keep  all  her  WefWndia 
ports  Ihut  againlt  us  we  Can  obtain  from  the  illands  of  other 
powers  the  fame  articles  which  they  produce  ;  and.  in  times 
of  fcarcity,  which  very  frequently  occur,  they  mull:  have  re- 
courfe  to  America  for  proviiions  and  lumber.  In  ev<  ry  rJpcci: 
they  are  more  dependent  upon  us,  than  we  are  upon  them  ; 
and  we  fhall  foon  force  from  them  a  much  more  advantage- 
ous trade  than  we  can  expect  to  obtain  by  treaty. 

Thus  circumftanced,  America  fhould  keep  the  ftaffof  com- 
merce in  her  own  hands.  She  ought  not,  except  in  very  par- 
ticular cafes,  to  form  treaties  of  commerce.  If  ilie  remains  un- 
fettered, Ihe  may  avail  herfelf  of  any  advantage  which  may  of- 
fer from  the  imprudence  or  fituation  of  other  countries.  Let 
.her  make  fuch  regulations  as  are  belt  calculated  to  promote  a 
fpirit  of  enterprise — to  add  to  her  riches,  and  to  increafe  the 
induitry  of  her  inhabitants,  and  let  her  have  courage  and 
conltancy  enough,  never  to  depart  from  them  in  favour  of 
itrangers.  In  her  prefent  defencelefs  and  infant  ftate,  it  is  next 
to  madnefs  to  attempt  forming  a  connection  with  this  nation, 
hoi;t  making  facrifices,   and  confenting  to  rcftraints  far  be- 


«?8  Cinna— No.  IV. 

yond  thofe  which  the  laws  of  nations  impofc,  which  ought  per- 
haps to  form  the  only  rule  between  two  commercial  powers. 
But  if  a  treaty  with  Great-Britain,  under  any  circumitances, 
be  proper,  why  infer*  in  it  matters  which  have  no  relation  to 
commerce,  and  which  properly  form  materials  for  a  feparate 
connection?  I  mean  the  rcfpe£tive  complaints  of  the  two  go- 
vernments againlt  each  other.  By  inferring  provifions  for  an 
adjustment  of  thefe  complaints  in  a  treaty  of  commerce,  Great- 
Britain  has  not  only  exacted  unreasonable  concefhons  for 
them  en  our  part  ;  but  if  a  ratification  docs  not  eventually 
take  place,  the  \rhole  ground  mufl  be  again  travelled  over,  and 
probably  at  a  time  when  Great-Britain  wijl  be  in  a  fituation  to 
hold  a  tone  ftill  more  haughty  and  imperious  than  fhe  now 
does.  Perhaps,  indeed,  this  was  one  reafon  which  induced  the 
advfersof  the  meafure  to  keep  from  the  fenate  the  real  ob- 
ject of  mr.  Jay's  million;  certain  it  is,  thacfrom  the  presi- 
dent's meffage,  they  had  as  much  reafon  to  believe  that  an 
alliance,  ofleufive  and  defenfive,  was  in  agitation  wilh  c- 

Britain,  as  a  treaty  of  commerce ;  and  yet  by  the  conftitu- 
tion  all  treaties  are  to  be  made  "  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
content  of  the  fenate."  The  plain  meaning  of  this  claufe  is, 
that  no  treaty  fhall  be  negociated  without  the  advice,  nor  ra- 
tified without  the  confent  of  the  fenate.  This  conftruttion  ha$ 
been  fanclioned  on  ether  occafions,  by  the  prefident  himfelf. 
Even  with  Indian  treaties,  he  has,  previous  to  negociation, 
fubmitted  to  them  the  contents  and  taken  their  ad\  ice  on  every 
part. 

The  term,  advice  refers  naturally  an  1  obvioufly  to  negoci- 
ntion.  Would  it  not  be  abfurdto  fay,  that  advice  was  necefla- 
rv  after  a  thing  was  done  ?  Confent  alcne  could  then  be  re- 
quired. There  is,  befidesj  a  rr  anifeft  propriety  in  the  prefident'* 
confulting  the  fenate  before  hand.  The  perfon  employed  to 
negociate  would  then  act  with  the  greater  confidence,  know- 
ing, that  his  inllructions  proceeded  not  from  the  prefident 
alone,  but  were  the  refult  of  the  accumulated  wifdom  of  the 
fenate  :  there  would  be  lefs  danger,  alio,  of  a  refufal  to  ratify 
on  their  part,  which  may  fonietin.es  be  productive  of  nation- 
al jcaloufies,  wars,  and  other  calamities,  it  being  unufual  not  to 
ratify  a  treaty  made  with  a  minuter  properly  appointed  and 
inftructcd.  Thus,  whether  we  confider  the  policy  of  making 
r.ny  treaty  with  Great-Britain,  as  an  abftract  queltion,  or  the 
t  and  ckindettine  manner  in  which  the  prefent  one  origi- 
nated, we  ihall  lind  much  room  for  doubt  and  cenfure.  But  it 
will  be  faidj  we  have  already  treaties  of  commerce  with  France 


ClNN'A — No.  IV.  0£ 

and  other  nations ;  true,  and  the  one  with  France,  though  in 
everv  refpect  more  favourable  than  the  one  under  confedera- 
tion, has  been  the  occafi  -n  of  much  perplexity  and  cmbarrafl- 
ment  to  our  government  in  the  prefent  war.  Let  ever  fo  much 
can"  be  ufed  to  make  them  explicit,  and  leave  no  room  for 
Con'dvu&ion,  dill  doubts  will  arife,  in  the  folution  of  which, 
not  only  the  parties  immediately  concerned,  but  other  na- 
tions, become  deeply  interefted.  This  has  been  the  cafe  with 
the  French  treat,.  v\.  Genet,  in  behalf  of  his  republic,  con- 
tended that  the  right  ot  arming  privateers  in  our  ports,  and 
other  privileges,  were  fee  tired  to  it  by  the  trenty  ;  all  the  other 
belligerent  nations  became  parties  to,  or  were  interefted  in  the 
controve'fy  ;  and  had  not  our  government  oppofed  a  claim, 
■which  was  certainly  ill-founded,  a  war  with  them  might  have 
been  the  confequence.  But  if  we  had  no  treaty  at  all  with 
France,  we  might,  as  a  neutral  nation,  have  opened  our  ports 
to  the  privateers  and  prizes  of  all  the  powers  at  war,  without 
giving  offence  to  any.  Our  other  treaties,  therefore,  inftead  of 
militating  in  favour  of  fuch  conceptions,  furnifh  very  ftrong, 
and,  if  I  may  ufe  die  expreflion,  vcxy  feeling  arguments  againit 
them. 

While  on  this  fubje£t,  I  cannot  forbear  to  remark,  that  a 
nation  weak  at  fea,  as  America  now  is,  and  mult  ever  conti- 
nue, unlefs  a  different  fyitem  is  fpeedily  adopted,  can  never 
promife  herfelf  any  good  from  the  ftricteft  commercial  itipula- 
tions  on  the  part  of  a  nation  which  is  emphatically  become 
miftrefs  of  the  ocean.  With  fuch  a  power  we  had  better  have 
no  connections,  except  fuch  as  arife  out  of  the  laws  of  nations. 
We  (hall  not  only  be  inclined,  but  compelled  to  obferve  our 
engagements,  while  Great-Britain  will  regard  them  only  as 
long  as  (he  finds  it  her  intereft,  and  will  laugh,  if  not  infult  us, 
when  we  complain  of  her  infractions. 

I  come  now  to  the  fixth  number  of  Camillus,  in  which  he 
accounts  for  no  provifion  appearing  in  the  treaty  againft  the 
prefiing  our  feamen.  The  object  is  admitted  to  be  of  the  lafl 
importance  to  the  United  States  ;  but  Camillus  is  at  a  lofs  to 
know  how  it  could  have  been  done.  "  A  general  ftipulation 
againft  it,"  fays  he,  "  would  have  been  nugatory,  if  not  de- 
rogatory." Could  there  be  any  thing  derogatory  in  Great- 
Britain  faying  {he  would  abltain  from  an  infamous  practice, 
which  perhaps  no  nation  but  America  ever  fubmitted  to  fo 
long  and  fo  patiently.  If  her  exiltence  and  fafety  depend  up- 
on her  maritime  fuperiority,  is  this  fuperiority  to  be  maintained 
at  our  expenfe  ?  Is  one  of  our  molt  ufeful  dalles  of  citizen* 


103  ClNNA  —  No.    IV. 

to  be  forced  into  her  fervicc,  and  add  to  her  aggrandizement* 
to  the  ruin  of  our  own  commerce  ?  ami  when  we  a  Ik  her  to 
stipulate  againft  fuch  outrages  in  future,  is  infult  to  be  added 
to  injury  r  Are  we  to  be  told,  that  until  the  Americans  change 
their  language  and  looks,  it  is  impofiible  to  diferiminatc  be- 
tween the  feamen  of  the  two  nations  ?  Mcthinks  every  fea- 
man  found  on  board  of  an  American  veiTel,  and  fpcaking 
Englilh,  fliould  be,  prima  facie,  deemed  a  citizen  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  and  fhouid  be  protected  as  fuch,  until  he  was  prov- 
ed a  deferter  from,  or  a  fubject  of  Great-Britain.  If  the  cap- 
tain of  an  American  frigate  fliould  take  it  into  his  head  to 
prefs  into  our  fervice  the  crew  of  an  Englifh  merchantman, 
merely  becaufe  they  fpoke  Englifli,  and  looked  like  Ameri- 
cans, would  Great-Britain  fubmit  to  the  indignity  ?  but  it 
our  ilag  is  not  to  protect  them,  where  is  the  difficulty  of  each 
man  being  furnifhed  with  a  certificate  of  his  birth  or  citizen- 
fhip,  authenticated  acccording  to  a  prefcribed  form?  No,  fays 
Camillus,  who  has  always  an  anfwer  ready,  when  Great- 
Britain  is  to  be  exculpated,  this  mode  is  liable  to  deception, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  relied  on.  Truly,  fir  !  your  ingenuity, 
aitonifhes  me.  Becaufe,  now  and  then,  an  impofition  may  be 
practifed,  becaufe  a  perjury  may  fometimes  be  committed,  all 
our  mariners  arc  to  be  at  the  mercy  of  Great-Britain.  Why 
not  be  explicit,  and  tell  the  truth  at  once.  Great-Britain  find- 
ing it  very  convenient  to  man  her  navy  with  our  feamen,  and 
her  national  fafety  being  at  ftake,  infills  upon,  and  will  exer- 
cife,  the  right  of  taking  them  wherever  fhe  finds  them.  She 
would  not,  therefore,  confentto  abltain  from  a  practice  which 
fhe  well  knows  we  dare  not  to  relent.  Our  miniller  would 
have  a£ted  with  becoming  dignity,  if  he  had  broke  off  the 
negociation,  until  fhe  had  con  fen  ted  to  an  article  of  more 
importance  to  this  country  than  all  the  others  put  together, 
and  which  would  have  made  fome  amends  for  the  innume- 
rable advantages  which  Great-Britain  derives  from  the  treaty. 
The  rights  and  fecurity  of  thefe  much-injured  and  ufeful 
men  have  been  molt  wantonly  abandoned  :  nor  do  they  alone 
feel  the  effects  of  this  abominable  fpecies  of  depredation. 
The  merchants,  too,  by  the  exorbitant  rife  of  wages,  which 
muft  advance  in  proportion  to  the  numbers  of  feamen  loft 
in  this  way,  fuffers  mo  ft  feverely — and,  in  a  little  time,  if  the 
practice  continues,  the  United  States  will  hardly  be  able  to 
man  a  fmgle  frigate.  Humanity  pleads  as  loudly  as  intereft, 
in  favor  of  the  ftipulation  ;  but  alas!  we  find  few  articles  in 


Cinna — No.  IV.  roi 

%rie  whole  inftrument,  which,  as  they  affect  America,  have 
been  dictated  by  either  of  thofe  lentiments. 

Another  part  of  the  reafoning  of  Camillus  muft  not  be 
overlooked.  ft  Our  right  to  an  exemption,"  lays  he,  '«  is  per- 
fect by  the  laws  of  nations  -,  and  a  contrary  right  is  not  even 
pretended  by  Great-Britain."  It  were  to  be  wiihed  that  Great- 
Britain  would  reft  contented  with  a  bare  pretention  to  this 
light.  Unfortunately,  {he  cxercifes  it  every  day-,  and  thou- 
fends  of  our  h'llow-citizens,  notwithltanding  the  exemption  to 
which  they  are  entitled,  are  dragged  from  their  own  veffels 
.into  a  fervice  which  they  execrate.  If  the  laws  of  nations  (c- 
cure  us  an  exemption,  where  could  be  the  harm  of  a  de- 
claratory a.  title  to  that  effect  ?  Other  parts  of  the  treaty, 
when  againlt  America,  have  been  jultified  by  fome,  and  pro- 
bably will  be  by  Camillus,  becaufe  of  their  conformity  to  the 
laws  of  nations.  Thus  it  has  been  faid,  and  no  doubt  will  be 
repeated,  that  by  thofc  laws,  free  vcffels  do  not  make  free  goods, 
and  that  therefore,  mr.  Jay  yielded  nothing,  when  he  content- 
ed to  an  article  of  that  kind.  Yvhy  then  fhould  not  Great- 
Britain  humour  ns  in  our  turn  ?  If  mr.  Jay  is  judicable  for 
doing  us  a  greater  injury  with  one  ftroke  of  his  pen,  than 
he  can  repair  if  he  lives  to  the  age  of  Methufalem,  becaufe 
the  law  of  nations  was  on  his  fide,  why  not  expect,  nay,  in- 
fill upon  the  fame  complaifance  from  Great-Britain  ?  to  what 
inconih'tencics  and  fhifts  are  fenfible  men  driven,  when  they 
vindicate  a  bad  caufe  !  to  what  an  abject  ftate,  my  country- 
men, are  you  reduced  !  Great-Britain  is  become  folc  arbiter 
of  your  rights,  and  the  men  whom  you  have  loaded  with  ho- 
nors and  offices,  and  who  for  years  have  drawn  all  their  fup- 
port  from  your  coffers,  and  who  ought  in  gratitude  to  defend 
you,  not  only  confent  to  furrender  your  pcrfons  and  liberties, 
but  infult  your  underftandings  by  an  attempt  to  make  you  be- 
lieve that  they  have  ftudied  your  true  intercfts  in  fo  doing — 
God  forbid  !  that  fome  dark  and  wicked  project  fhould  lurk 
behind  all  this  myfterious  conduct.  Time  alone  can  difcovcr, 
whv  Americans  are  to  be  dragooned  juft  at  this  time,  at  the 
evident  hazard  of  a  rupture  with  Fiance,  into  this  new  and  dis- 
graceful connection.  Events,  yet  in  the  womb  of  time,  muft 
develope  whether  Great-Britain  has  promifed  any,  and  what  aid 
to  a  certain  party,  in  the  attempts  it  may  make,  to  ftreflgthen 
the  government,  and  give  it,  as  it  is  modeftly  called,  a  little 
more  energy.  In  the  mean  while,  let  us  be  vigilant,  and  we 
(hall  defeat  every  attempt  upon  our  independence,  md  cover 

Vol.  III.  P 


Resolutions  or  the 

nith  confufioh  thofe  who  dare  to  raife  a  facrilegious  hand 
;(t  our  free  and  happy  conftitution. 

We  are  now  arrived  with  Camillus  at  the  firfl:  article  of 
the  treaty.  The  way  has  been  tedious  and  difagreeable.  He 
has  told  us,  out  of  pure  patriotifm,  many  unpalatable  truths. 
Thank  God,  notwithftanding  all  his  pains  and  eloquence  (for 
even  his  enemies  mult  allow  him  to  write  well)  my  former 
good  opinion  of  my  country  is  unfhaken.  Her  conduct,  with 
refpect  to  Great-Britain  will  bear  the  ftridtefl:  fcrutiny.  She 
has,  indeed,  been  more  finned  againft  than  finning.  If  I  am 
miihiken,  the  dclufion  is  plcafant,  and  I  hope  Camiilus  will 
not  think  me  obllinate,  when  he  is  allured,  that  hitherto  I 
have  not  difcovered  the  ftrength  of  any  ground  he  has  thought 
proper  to  take. 

In  difculfmg  the  firfl:  article,  Camillus  encounters  an  ob- 
jection, Hated  by  the  Charlelton  committee.  It  mud  be  con- 
fefled,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  much  force  in  the  objec- 
tion, and  yet,  as  fome  Britilh  fubjects  were  profcribed  during 
the  war,  it  may  be  a  doubt  whether  thofe  of  that  defeription 
will  not  be  permitted  to  return  under  the  treaty.  It  was,  at  any 
rate,  hardly  worth  while  to  find  fault  with  this  article,  and 
perhaps  fomewhat  puerile  in  Camillus  to  take  fo  much  trou- 
ble, ferioufly  to  combat,  what  the  objectors  themfelves  could 
not  have  laid  much  ftrefs  on.  The  committee  had,  perhaps, 
difcovered  fo  many  faults  in  the  other  articles,  they  thought 
it  impoflible  there  fhould  be  an  innocent  one  in  the  whole 
treaty,   whatever  its  appearance  might  be. 

Augujl  13,  1795.  CINNA. 

[to  be  continued.] 


SOU  TH-C  AROLIN A— WASHINGTON  DISTRICT. 

'September   16,    1 795. 

THE  Franklin,  or  Republican  Society  of  Pendleton  coun- 
ty, having,  by  the  watchful  vigilance  of  their  Handing 
committee,  on  a  molt  prefling  occafion,  been  called  together 
to  give  their  opinion  on  a  public  meafure — a  right  they  will  not 
tamely  relinquilh,  nor  refign  but  with  their  lives  ! — having  ta- 
ken into  confideration  the  ruinous  treaty propofed  and  figned  by 
John  Jay,  the  American  ambaffador,  with  his  Britannic  ma- 


Franklin  Soar 

jefty — a  treaty  as  deteftable  in  its  origin,  as  contemptible  ii\,< 
its  event ! — a  treaty  which  can  never  be  enforced  but  by  the 
bayonet  ! — having  fully  weighed  it  in  all  its  articles — and  tak- 
ing into  view,  that  when  the  complaints  of  a  brave  and  pow- 
erful people  are  obferved  to  increafe  in  proportion  to  the 
wrongs  they  have  fuffercd ! — when,  inftead  of  finking  into  fub- 
mifnon,  they  are  rouzed  to  refiftance  !  the  time  mult  conic 
at  which  every  inferior  confideration  will  yield  to  their  iecu- 
rity — to  the  general  fafety  of  the  empire  ! 

There  is  a  moment  of  difficulty  and  danger,  at  which  Bri- 
tifh  flattery  and  falfehood  can  no  longer  deceive,  and  fimpli- 
city  itlelf  can  be  no  longer  mifled  ! — that  period  has  at  length 
arrived. 

"When  we  fee  a  man  improperly  appointed  to  negociate  one 
of  the  molt  important  treaties,  becaufe  not  properly,  not  con- 
ftiutionally  advifed — that  this  man  was  the  molt  improper, 
becaufe  his  attachment  to  Britain,  and  averfion  to  France, 
v  ere  notorious  ! — and  that  he  was  altogether  an  objectionable 
character,  becaufe,  (in  admitting  doubts  to  be  flatted  by  Bri- 
tain about  our  line,  and  to  which  he  acceded  !) — inftead  cjT 
ihowing  a  thorough  knowledge  of  his  country — appears  to 
have  been  wretchedly  ignorant,  and  confequcntly  either  fharrte- 
fully  impofed  on,  or  corruptly  influenced  ! — who,  inftead  ot 
ufing  that  policy  which  fhould  have  "  extorted  from  Britain, 
in  her  prefenc  ftate  of  humiliation,  (and  which  could  not  be 
hoped  from  her  juftice)"  a  reparation  of  reiterated  wrongs  ! — 
was  the  jirjl  man  to  propofe  to  fubmit  to  a  treaty,  which,  it 
adopted,  mult  blait  us  in  the  opinion  of  Europe  as  the  mod 
pufillanimous  nation  that  ever  exifted  ! — a  treaty  which,  in 
all  its  hardened  features,  betrays  infult  and  contempt  ! — a 
treaty,  not  only  thus  made  odious,  but  which  abridges,  in  eve- 
ry refpett,  our  rights,  and  which  fports  with  our  juft  claims 
and  interclts  ! — we  demand,  that  when  fuch  glaring,  ruinous 
conduct:  appear \r,  is  permitted,  is  /auctioned !  have  not  the 
people  juit  grounds  of  complaint — would  not  filence  be  cri- 
minal ? 

Therefore  refolved,  That  when  a  public  meafure  dares  not 
I  be  arraigned,  "  becaufe  it  is  the  offspring  of  the  higheji  public 
CI  \ra£ier" — then  liberty  lies  proilrate — then  deipotifm  be- 
gins ! — and  heartily  adopting  the  fentiments  of  our  fellow- 
citizens  of  Camden,  (at  the  fame  time  veprobating  denuncia- 
tions again/}  orderly  afjociations J  with  them  we  do  infill,  that  it 
is  both  the  duty  and  right  of  freemen,  on  ail  great,  public  oc- 
•  i,  in  which  the  honor  and  welfare  of  the  republic  :s 


io4  Resolutions  of  the 

concerned,  to  come  forward  and  declare  their  fentiments  with 
freedom  andfirmnefs — that  thole  who  are  entrufted  with  pow- 
er, may  be  admonifhed  to  ufe  that  power  only  for  the  good  of 
the  people,  who  placed  it,  for  that  efpecial  purpofe,  in  their 
hands*,  and  to  teach  them  to  be  cautious  how  they  violate  the 
precious,  the  facred  truth 

Refolded,  That  on  the  appointment  of  John  Jay  as  an  <\v- 
traordinary  ambaflador  to  Britain,  we  were  led  to  believe  that 
our  rights  would  h  ive  been  vindicated  with  firmnefs,  a  repa- 
ration of  our  wrongs  obtained  ! — on  the  contrary,  even  after 
the  figning  of  a  treaty  of  amity,  our  flag  is  the  common  /port  of 
Britain,  and  our  failor  fellow-citizens  and  property  at  their 
mercy. 

Refolved,  That  we  were  induced  by  prof 'effort  to  believe  our 
administration  fympathized  in  the  caufe  of  an  ally  wreftiing; 
for  liberty — a  great  and  regenerated  people,  who  cherifh  in} 
their  utmoft  purity  thofe  facred  principles  which  have  laid  the 
foundation  of  our  freedom  in  the  blood  of  our  dearefl  citizens  .'— 
but  that  ally  has  been  treated  with  infmcerity,  even  at  the  moM 
ment  our  inveterate  enemy,  and  the  foe  of  human  happinefs,  has 
been  invited  to  our  bofom  !  and  ivhen  Brhijh  tyranny  and  bafenem 
can  leave  not  a  doubt,  on  a  Jingle  unprejudiced  mind,  that  ive  ari 
about  to  give  that  nation  a  footing  in  laiu  among  us  which  ivill  h 
converted  to  our   ruin  ! 

Refolved,  That  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  al 
treaties   are  to  be  made  "  by  and  with  the  advice  and  confeni  6 
the  fenate" — that  is,  no  treaty  (hall  be  negociated  without 
advice firfl  taken,  nor  accepted  without  the  confent  ot  the  fenate 
— But  the  fenate,  as  fuch,  were  ignorant  of  the  principle  a 
bafis  of  the  treaty  itfelf.  We  admit  they  were  made  acquainte 
with  the  appointment  of  Jay,  but  did  not  instruct  him,  nor  we* 
informed  of  his  instructions.  He  was  injlrutled,  or  he  was  not  .'- 
if  he  was!  ive  ivill  drop  the  curtain  !  if  not,  and  acted  of.xndfro 
himfelf,  wc  ihall  lament  the  want  of  a  guillotine  !  For  when  wi 
it  ever  conceived  to  bepof/ible  that  America  could  entertain  the  at] 
i'urd  and  dangerous  idea  of  trusting  any  man,  (but  efp<  cially 
Jay)  to  negociate  vrithfucb  a  government  as  Britain — witho 
explicit  inl'iructions! — The  obvious  conltruction  of  the  claufe  i 
the  conititution,  which  makes  the  advice  of  the  fenate  neceila 
has  been  given  by  thePrefulcnt  himfelf,  when  a  treaty  was  pn 
pofed  byFrance.  Mr.  Genet  was  empowered  to  propofe  a  trea: 
"  on  liberal  principles,  fuch  as  might Jl lengthen  the  bonds  of  good- 
ivhich  unite  the  two  nations,"  but  on  making  his  proposal  to 
executive,  lie  was   informed  "  that  the  participation  'in  mat 
:j  treaty,  given  by  the  conjlitution  to  that  branch  of  govcrntn 


Franklin  Society.  105 

rfwer  to  !  ion,  the 

fa:,!,  r,  andjiot  to  meet  ag,  il  the  fall." — In 

the  negotiation  with  Great-Britain,  the  fenate  was  in  ctjfi<m% 
ami  yet  were  they  called  on  to  advife  ?  Did  they  give  inftruc- 
r  They  did  not!  We  allow  this  moil  intereiling  huli- 
nets  was  taken  up  in  the  fenate  by  our  patriotic  citizen  But- 
ler— but,  from  a  want  of  formality,  he  was  oppoied — and 
this  important  matter  died  away,  becaufe  it  was  not  orderly  I 
— In  the  treat)  alio  with  the  Creeks,  the  prefident  required 
the  advice  of  the  fenate  befort  he  began  to  treat,  and  actually 
laid  the  outlines  of  a  treaty  before  them  previous  to  the  nego- 
tiation. 

Refolded,  Thnt  we  confider  it  becoming  in  a  high  degree 
the  duty  of  the  houie  of  representatives  of  the  general  govern- 
ment, to  enquire  into  Co  bold  an  attack  on  the  palladium  of 
our  rights — 'tis  mipollible  they  can  futler  fo  flagrant  a  breach 
in  the  constitution  to  pafs  unnoticed  ! — The-  prefident  and 
fenate  will  certainly  endeavour  to  reconcile  their  conduct  to 
the  wounded  feelings  of  their  fellows-citizens. 

Refolvtd%  That  fo  far  as  is  depending  on  \\\$oivn  integrity 
and  good  wifhes  to  the  United  States,  we  are  Hill  willing  to 
behold  in  Wafhington  the  fame  good  and  great  nun:  I  But  is  it 
not  podible,  at  leaft  refpec'ting  Jay's  treaty,  that  lie  may  have 
been  wrongly  advifed  ? 

Refohed,  That  it  is  highly  probable  our  generous  and  brave 
ally,  however  well-difpofed  towards  us,  viewed,  with  fome 
emotion  of  indignation,  at   the  lead,  the  ui  lanner  hi 

which  their  propofition  for  a  treaty  was  rtaeived  and  rejeHed 
by  our  government  \  and  no  v  find  themfelves  under  the  ne- 
cellity  of  calling  on  us  to  declare  honefli)  and  openly^  our  inten- 
tions towards  them — whether  we  will  adopt  thefrji  fuprtme 
law  of  the  land  under    the  patrotu  ge  cj    J  .</  ? 

The  period  has  at  length  arrived  to  know  our  ultimatum — 
the  mail:  has  been  ftrippen  off  by  mr.  jay — and  the  majority 
of  twenty  in  the  fenate,  we  conjecture,  will  be  cautious  how 
far  they  pledge  themfelves  to  their  conltituents  on  the  utility 
of  an  Englifn.  treaty,  provided  France  mould  Iho.v  her  disap- 
probation, or  confider  herfclf  neglected. 

Refolvedy  Thar  admitting  (what  is  infinuated  by  a  member 
of  congrefs  for  this  (late,  the  advocate  .v>\d  defender  of  Britilh 
fyltems  and  Britifh  tyranny  !)  that  the  treaty  propofed  by 
France,  he  iufpects,  could  not  be  obtained  on  eligible  terms,  but 
at  the  price  of  joining  with  her  in  the  war — we  do  infill,  that 
at  the  time  alluded  to,  the  honor,  the  intereft  of  America  ear- 


ic6  Resolutions  of  the 

neftly  called  onus,  to  enter  heartily  into  meafurcs  oppofed  \<% 
the  dreadful  league  formed  again  ft  a  generous  and  natural  al~ 
Jy,  whofe  welfai  and  niuji  he  infeparable  from  our  own  ! 

The  moment  Britain  openly  declared  againft  Frame,  fhould 
have  been  our  fignal  for  action  !— The  united  voice  of  the 
continent  proclaimed  the  general,  the  generous  fentiment ! — 
But  the  grateful  feelings  of  a  •whole  people  hverefunk  in  the  timi- 
dity of  its  government ! 

Refclved,  That  (reflecting  on  the  prefent  interefting  mo- 
ment, when  an  eventual  war  with  Britain  may  be  reafonably 
expected  from  a  \ further  difcufjiou  of  mr.  J  ay's  friendly  treaty)  we 
deprecate,  with  the  ftrongeit  emotions  of  apprehenfion',  a  dif- 
ference betiveen  America  and  France  .'-—'War  with  England, 
will  be  war  with  Spain  !  Our  government  knows  it  !  Even 
the  neutrality  of  France,  under  fuch  circumltances,  can  be  an- 
ticipated but  with  very  unpleafmg   fenfations. 

Refclved,  That  we  view  with  furprize  the  induflry  ufed  not 
to  dilclofe  the  articles  of  mr.  Jay's  treaty — affecling  and  prac- 
tifwg  all  the  fecrecy  of  monarchy,  fo  oppofite  to  open  and  republican 
principles. — Will  it,  dare  it  be  contended,  that  the  people  have 
no  right  to  afk,  nay,  to  demand  information  on  the  poftureof 
their  affairs  ? — Secrecy  robs  them  of  this  right,  and  makes 
twenty  greater  than  the  whole.  Is  this  republicanifm  ? — Is  this 
liberty  ? — Monarchs  and  conclaves  make  a  trade  of  fecrecy — 
itfuits  their  defgns — but  neither  monarchs  nor  conclaves  ire, 
as  yet,  in  unilon  with  the  fentiments,  nor  the  wifhes  of  the 
American  people.  There  is  no  authorized  fecrecy  in  our  go- 
vernment, and  to  infer  fuch  a  right  from  the  practices  of  other 
nations,  is  a  proftitution  of  republican  principles.  The  confti- 
tution  of  the  United  States  gives  to  the  prefident  and  fenatc 
the  power  of  making  treaties,  but  it  communicates  no  ability 
to  hatch  thufe  things  in  darknefs.  A  treaty  !  which  is  to  be  the 
iuprcme-law-of-the-land  !  and  yet  the  people  not  to  be  inform- 
ed of  the  terms  of  this  law  until  binding  upon  them  i  until  the 
opportunity  for  amendment  is  pait !  — Secrecy  and  myftery 
marked  the  conception,  birth,  and  parentage  of  this  lump  of 
abortion  and  deformity. — The  prefident  received  the  treaty  in 
January,  when  congrefs  were  fitting,  and  did  not  iubmit  it  to 
the  fenate  rill  June! — when  it  was  impoffible  any  one  legifla- 
ture  in  the  union  could  be  in  feffion  to  give  the  alarm  ! — The 
prefs  alone  had  the  glory  of  the  difeovery  and  reprobation  of 
this  horrid  political  monfter  ! — It  is  alfo  worthy  of  note,  that 
oa  the  29th  of  laid  month  (January)  the  prefidei 
«  an  act  of  cemgrefs  to  cftablifh   an  uniform  1 


Fr'amklin  Society.  107 

m,"  and  that  a  few  months  afterwards  \\xtfenaie  (atone)  np~ 
/a  treaty  which  renders  faiil  ae"t  null  and  void,  in  favour 
of  "  all  fettlers  and  traders  (the  rooted  enemies  of  America) 
within  the  precin£ts  or  jurifdiction  (a  large  extent  of  country) 
of  the  potts." — Should  this  treaty  be  ratified,  'twill  be  out  of 
the  power  of  congrefs  to  remedy  its  evils  without  hazarding  a 
war — And  it  may  with  lafety  be  prefumed,  that  nine-tenths, 
at  leall,  of  the  citizens  of  America,  look  with  indignation  and 
abhorrence  on  the  inglorious  attempt  made  by  mr.  Jay,  and  his 
ndvifers,  to  chain  fifteen  independent  ftates  as  a  dangling  ap~ 
hkndagt  tc  the  crown  cf  Great-JB  retain! 

Rejblved,  That  infurmountable  objections  lie  againil  the  trea- 
ty, were  there  no  others,  while  the  value  of  the  negroes  and 
other  property  carried  away  contrary  to  the  feventh  article  of  the 
treaty  of  1 783 ;  and  the  lofs  and  damage  in  blood  and  treaiure  fuf- 
tained  by  the  United  States,  from  the  detention  of  polls,  re- 
main unfatisfied  for  by  the  Britifh  government — the  amount  of 
which  mould  have  been  afecrt.iincd  by  the  commiffioners  to  be 
appoint!  il  to  liquidate  the  claims  of  Britifh  creditors,  and  let 
ofFagainfl  the  principal  of  their  debt;  for,  as  to  interclt,  dur- 
t  lie  war,  they  have  not  the  fhadow  of  a  claim. — No  man 
t  mi  rtain  a  <!oubt,  (even  the  Britifh, not  the  governor  of  Cana- 
da himfelf,  have  been  fufTipiently  hardy  to  deny  it)  that  the  In- 
dians were  excited  to  war  again (t  us, — and  that  the  fupplics 
for  their  warfare  were  derived  from  a  trade  authorized  by  tkk 
Britijh  government)  and  protected  by  thofe  pojk  which  of  right 
ivei\  our'.,,  and  ought  to  have  been  njrdfor  cur  defence — This  v 
lias  coll  us,  annually,  calculating  the  loi's  of  the  fur  trade  de- 
pending on  the  pofts,  above  one  million  three  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars,  more  than  would  have  been  fufTicient  for  the  de- 
fence of  our  frontiers  if  the  polls  had  been  in  our  poileflion.  Let 
this  fum,  and  the  amount  of  their  piratical  depredations,  the 
whole  continent  fays,  be  made  a  fet-off  with  Britifh  claims. 

Refolved,  That  by  the  article  regulating  the  Well-India  trade, 
nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  Britain  meditated  to 
wreit  from  America  the  carrying-trade,  an  immenfe  ihare  of 
which  fhe  has  lately  pofiefled,  as  appears  by  the  aftonifhing  in- 
creafeof  our  feamen  and  fhipping ;  but  we  trull  'twill  never 
be  forgotten  that  the  protection  of  a  free  carrying-trade  was 
one  of  the  primary  ©bjects  for  which  the  federal  government 
was  eftablifhed. — Let  not,  then,  our  national  government  have 
the  difcredit  of  doing  any  thing  by  which  the  limits  of  our  na- 
vigation may  be  fettered. — Let  us  not  concur  with  the  Britifh 
miniftry,  in  eminently  promoting  the  Britifh  commerce  at  the 


ie3  Resolutions  or-  the 

cxpenfe  of  our  own  ! — Not  fatisfied  with  innumerable  depre- 
dations on  our  fhippfrig,  the  Britifh  government  wants  their 
total  destruction  by  this  infidiou-  onfining  our  veffels 

to  lev  ,  mere  boats,  whilft  they  referve  to  then 

the  right  of  navigating  in  any  fize  veflels  they  pleafe,  in  the 
fame  purfuit  of  trade.  By  this  deceptive  article,  we  alone  gran- 
ted— have  been  prevented  from  exporting  in  our  own  bottoms 
any  articles  of  Weft-India  produce,  a  ( cotton ,  an  arti- 

cle of  our  own  and  becoming  a   very  important  one 

in  this  zmd  the  iifrer  itat<*  of  Georgia  (even  in  our  o\\  n  dillrict) 
— while  the  veflels  of  Britain  and  every  other  nation,  would 
be  at  liberty  to  export  from  American  ports  every  article  of 
Weft-India,  and  fome  of  our  own  produce,  to  all  parts  of  the 
world. 

Refolded,  That  the  adopters  and  warm  advocates  for  this 
treaty  muft  have  regarded  a  favourite  policy,  a  clofe  connection 
with  Britain  and  Britifh  fyftems,  more  than  pecuniary  benefit 
or  national  dignity ;  for,  fetting  afide  all  reciprocity,  no  one 
advantage  can  we  gain  by  any  regulation  in  the  treatv,  diftintr. 
from  a  much  greater  to  be  obtained  by  the  Britifh  nation. 

Rcfolvedy  That  the  article  reftricling  the  fubjecls  or  citizens 
of  either  party  from  accepting  com  millions  in  the  army  or  na- 
vy of  nny  foreign  power,  is  a  grofs  violation  of  the  natural 
rights  of  man — and,  as  fuch,  fhould  have  been  indignantly 
fpurned  at! 

Refolved,  That  we  join  heartily  in  fentiment  with  that  truly 
patriotic  and  {launch  republican,  the  chief  juftice  Rut] edge, 
that  mr.  Jay  mould  have  demanded  an  unconditional  relin- 
quishment of  the  Weftern  Polls  as  a  right,  until- which  had  been 
granted,  and  until  the  Britifh  miniller  had  given  orders  to  that 
effect,  mr.  Jay  mould  not  have  opened  his  lips  about  a  treaty  ! 
What  amity  could  be  expected  from  a  government,  at  thy  in- 
flant  of  negociation,  forcing  the  tomahawk  and  fcalping-knife 
into  the  hands  of  favages,  to  the  deftruclion  of  great  num- 
bers of  our  immediate  frontier  fellow-citizens  !  It  was.  truly, 
proflituting  the  deareft  rights  of  freemen,  and  laying  them  prof- 
trate  at  the  feet  of  royalty.  In  1703,  the  executive  prcfied  thg 
demand  of  the  Weftern  Polls,  with  a  fpirit  becoming  the  repre- 
fentativeofanationof  freemen,  an  ultimatum  wacrequiredon  the 
fubjecl,  by  December  of  that  year,  and  how  were  we  treated  ? 
With  a  contcptuous  fdence,  and  frelh  injuries  heaped  upon  us,  1 
depredations  on  our  property,  as  unwarrantable  as  the  robbe- 
ries of  an  Algerine,  or  the  plundering  of  a  favage  !  And,  were 
it  pollible  to  fully  the  name  of  the  Britifh  government  with  an 
additional  (hade,  of  infamy,  the  fame  would  be  afforded  by  the 


Franklin  Society*.  109 

Hircumftance  of  their  treatment  to  this  country,  involving  in  it 
the  black  defgn  ofjlarving  a  people^  ivhofe  only  crime  has  been  the 
defence  of  freedom.  Such  treatment,  it  was  natural  to  imagine, 
would  have  roufed  us  to  retaliate;  and  the  immediate  reprcfen- 
tatives  of  the  people,  according  with  the  Sentiments  of  their 
conitituents,  made  an  attempt  to  extort  redrefs  by  means  of  a 
provifional  retaliation*  But,  in  one  inftance.  the  fenate,  in 
anclhi'v  the  fupreme  executive,  checked  them  in  their  honorable. 
Career  ;  and  the  energetic  portion  of  the  government,  with  un- 
paralleled ivcakncfs,  humbly  fued  for  the  friendfhip  of  a  nation 
which  ever  treated  us  as  foes  ;  rejecting,  at  the  fame  time,  (the 
better  tofecure  her /miles  J  the  proffered  amity  of  another  nation, 
to  which,  in  a  great  meafure,  we  owe  our  exiftence,  as  a  free 
people,  and  which  has  alfo  other  ftrong  claims  to  our  gratitude 
and  friendfhip  ! 

Refolved,  With  that  tried  veteran  and  patriot,  the  venerable 
Gadfden,  That  we  confider  all  connections  by  treaties   with 
Great-Britain,  equally  impolitic  and  dangerous.    Dangerous* 
becaufc  ( whilft  her  government  is  monarchical  and  unregene- 
rated^  we  fhall  infenfibly  give  her  fuch  a   footing  among  us, 
and  confequently  fo  great  an  afoendancy  over  our  councils  and. 
government,   as  may  eventually  fap   our  independence,  and 
fubvert  our  conftitmtion  !   And  impolitic,  becaufe   'tis  our  in- 
terest, by  the  utmoft  individual  and  national  exertions,  (parti- 
cularly our  fouthern  ftates)  to  arrive  at  an  independent  tranf- 
jjortation  of  our  commodities — to  become  the  carriers  of  their 
Own  produce,  for,  'tis  an  alarming  fact,  eftablifncd  on  the  belt 
authority,  that  by  the  almolt  constant  wars  in  which  Britain  is 
engaged  ({behaving  had  in  the  laft  one  hundred  years,  forty-two 
of  war,  and  fifty-feven  years  and  nine  months  of  peace,  which  ia 
three  of  war  to  every  four  of  peace)  and  that  by  being  fo  large- 
ly the  exporters  of  our  produce,  fhe  carrying  two-fifths  of  the 
whole  exports  of  the  United  States,  the  difference  of  freight, 
tnfurance  and  charges,  amounts,  on  an  average  of  peace  and 
war,  to  one  million,  three  hundred  and  ninety-two  thoufand, 
right  hundred  and  fifty-feven  dollars,    taxed    annually  on  our 
Agriculture  by  Britifh  wars,  during  their  continuance,  and  our 
dependence   on  Britifh  bottoms,   and  fo  much  more  than  we 
(hould  pav  did  we  but  raiie  our  own  (hipping  to  be  competent 
:o  the  carriage  of  all  our  own  productions,  and  that,  befide  this, 
.  nany  of  our  bulky  articles,  not  bearing  a  war  freight,  cannot 
)c  exported.  While  Britain,  then,  is  the  carrier  of  two-fifths  of 
)ur  produce,  our  independence  is  incomplete,  and  ever  will  be, 
f  we  tamely  fuller  fuch,  negociators  as  mr.  Jay,  to  form  trea« 

Vol.  III.  O 


1 10  RESOLUTION'S  OF  THE 

ties  with  that  nation,  calculated  to  keep  up  a  fervile  and  ruin- 
ous dependence,  by  the  immoderate,  the  exceflive  ufe  of  her 
manufactures.  Let  us  wear  nothing  but  what  is  American— 
eat  nothing,  drink  nothing  but  \'  hat  is  American — this  would 
foon  raife  the  head  of  America.  Let  the  people  of  Britain  be 
driven  to  poverty  and  dcfpair  by  acts  of  their  oivn  government  t 
and  what  would  be  the  conicquence  ?  An  acquisition  of  ten9 
of  thoufands  of  really  uieful  citizens  to  the  United  States, 
which  iorm  the  natural  afylum  to  the  people  of  the  old  world, 
to  faatch  them  from  a  wretched  exiftence,  from  flavery— to  the 
enjoyment  of  plenty,  happinefs — to  liberty  ! 

Refolved,  That  we  ever  confidered  the  appointment  of  John 
Jay,  as  extraordinary  as  it  was  unconftitutional;  extraordinary, 
becaufe  underrating  the  abilities  of  our  then  ambaffador :  a  man, 
in  every  refpetl,  juftly  poffeffing  the  confidence  of  the  union— 
efpecially,  as  there  is  good  ground  for  afferti-ig,  that  major 
Pinckney's  energetic  and  firmreprefentation  hadinfured  the  im- 
mediate ceffion  of  our  Weitern  Pofts — and  a  treaty,  at  leaft  as 
favorable  as  any  nation  could  have  expected  from  England. 

Refo/vedy  That  roufed  at  length  into  a  fenfe  of  our  danger, 
we  pronounce  for  war,  with  all  its  horrors,  rather  than  fee  out 
country  approve  of  meafures  which  will  effedt,  her  annihila- 
tion. A  treaty  !  to  be  bought  at  the  expenfe  of  infamy  !  pur- 
chafed  at  the  lofs  of  the  affection  of  an  ally,  as  generous-  in 
friendfhip  as  glorious  in  arms!  No!  magnanimous  nation! 
truly  worthy  of  liberty!  we  will  chert/b,  we  will  refpecl  thy  opi- 
nion J  ive  nuill  not  fuffer  thy  ejleem  to  be  taken  from  us!  we  will 
prove  to  the  world,  and, above  all,  to  the  Englifh  government, 
that  we  will  not  be  the  dupes  of  their  infidious  policy — their 
craft — their  ambition  ! — Oh,  ye  Jays  of  America,  who  boaft 
of  wifdom  fo  exalted,  penetration  fo  profound — how  is  it  pof- 
fible  you  have  not  yet  lifted  up  the  veil  \  hich  hides  from  your 
eyes  the  low  iinifter  politics  of  the  Englifh  government !  How 
is  it  ye  do  not  fee  to  what  a  degree  it  abufes  ye !  and  what  a 
trick  it  has  put  upon  the  "  folcmnity"  of  your  folemn  am- 
baffador ! 

Refolvedy  That  the  much-efteemed  names  of  Langdon,  of 
New-Hampfhire  ;  Robinfon,  of  Vermont;  Burr,  of  New- 
York;  Brown,  of  Kentucke  ;  Mafon  and  Tazewell,  6V  Virgi- 
nia ;  Bloodworth  and  Martin,  of  North-Carolina  ;  Butler,  our 
fellow-citizen,  of  South-Carolina  ;  and  Jackfon,  of  Georgia— 
the  patriotic  fenators — be  held  in  our  higheft  veneration  and 
molt  marked  efteem. 

Refolvedy  That  the  public  report,  not  contradicted,  fixes  oa 


Franklin  Society.  ill 

Jacob  Read,  our  unworthy  Jenator — corrupt  motives  for  his  ac- 
quiefcence  in  a  treaty  which  would  have  made  his  country  in- 
famous ! — would  have  reflored  her  back  to  Britain  !  We  there- 
fore do  not  hefitate  to  declare  him,  (with  his  nineteen  quon- 
*  dam  coadjutors)  undeferving  of  any  further  public  confidence  : 
And,  guided  by  an  opinion  founded  in  a  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  we  do  infill,  that  if  not  loft  to  all  the  fine  feelings  of 
the  heart,  'twill  be  impofiible  they  can  withftand  that  immenfe 
torrent  of  opprobrium  which  will  rufh  upon  them  ;  they  mull 
refign  !  they  cannot,  in  future,  tranfact  any  public  bufinefs  ! 

Refolved,  That  as  the  power  of  finally  making  and  ratifying 
treaties  by  the  prefident  and  two-thirds  of  the  fenate  alone, 
has,  in  the  prcfent  cafe,  been  proved  to  be  of  a  moft  alarming- 
ly dangerous  nature  ;  that  our  very  exiftence  as  a  free  people, 
had  been  put  at  ftakc  ;  that  had  not  a  good  providence  influen- 
ced even  the  twenty  of  the  fenate  to  reject  one  article,  which, 
from  necejfity,  mult  arrell  the  hand  of  the  prefident  from  fign- 
ing  it,  we  fay,  that  had  not  the  providential  care,  which  we 
have  fo  often  experienced,  interpofed,  we  had  been  a  loft,  an 
undone  people,  without  pity,  and  without  friends  ! 

Therefore,  Refoivcd,  That  our  members  be  earneftly  called  on, 
at  the  next  meeting  of  the  aflembly,  topropofe  an  amendment 
to  the  federal  conllitution,  fo  far  as  refpedts  the  power  of  mak- 
ing treaties.  That  a  prefident,  and  twenty  fenators,  perhaps 
fourteen  (for  that  number  makes  a  quorum)  {hall  have  the 
fole  power  of  making  treaties,  which  mult  be,  neceiTarilv,  the 
fupreme  law ;  mult  be  binding  on  every  individual,  which 
fwallow  up  the  fovereignty  and  independence  of  each  ftate  ! 
No  !  the  people  now  fee  the  folly  of  giving  fuch  a  power  into 
the  hands  of  fourteen  men,  which,  at  all  times,  mayfupercede 
every  exifting  law  in  the  union  !  'tis  too  much  !  "Without  a 
difpofition  to  judge  uncharitably  ot  men,  we  fay  'ris  poilible 
that  twenty  or  fourteen  men  may  be  tempted,  may  be  bribed 
to  betray  the  precious  truft  repofed  in  them  by  their  fellow- 
citizens  !  And  we  repeat,  that  as  it  is  notorious  Britain  carries 
f  all  her  points  by  corruption,  (look  in  lord  North's  eftimate 
during  the  American  war  ;  you  will  there  find  one  million  for 
contingents  or  fecret  fervice  !  Has  not  France,  throughout  her 
ftruggle,  complained  (lie  felt  Britifh  corruption  in  her  very  vi- 
tals !  and  {hall  America  expect  to  efcape  her  baneful  influ- 
ence !)  then  'tis  pojjihle  that  twenty  or  fourteen  men  may  be  led 
to  fell  even  their  country  !  We,  therefore,  again  urge  it  ou  our 
reprefentatives,  to  bring  forward  an  amendment,  by  which 
iongrefs  at  large,  and  congrefs  alette,  {hall   have    the  power  of 


lix  Resolutions  of  the 

forming  treaties,  at  lead  of  ratifying  them.  Wc  venture  to  pro* 
nounce  the  people  will  not  be  latishcd  fhort  of  this  :  from  onq  ^e 
extreme  of  the  continent  to  the  other,  this  will  be  the  univerfal  sj( 
language.  We  know,  in  framing  the  federal  conftitution,  the 
objection  to  giving  the  houfe  of  rtprefentatives  this  power, 
jointly  with  the  fenate  and  prdidcnt,  was,  that  negotiations  ge-i 
nerally  required  the  grwtejl  Jeer -cry,  and  that  was  not  to  be  expefl-i 
edfromfo  large  a  body.  Curftr  on  fuch  fecrecy!  it  lias  undone 
our  country  !  An  American  aflembly,  aloof  from  the  combina- 
tions of  Europe,  mould  have  no  fecrets  !  No  government  in 
the  known  world,  like  our's,  ever  gave  fuch  an  extenfive  lati-- 
tude  as  we  allow  to  the  prefident  and  fenate  •,  even  the  molt  ar- 
bitrary kings  never  pofTefTed  any  thing  like  it  !  In  France,  un- 
der the  old  government,  appearances  at  leaft,  were  kept  up  ;  the 
king's  edi£ls  were  never  of  force  until  regiltered  in  parliament. 
In  England  they  proceed  with  diffidence  in  making  treaties— < 
far  from  being  confuiered  as  legal  without  a  parliamentary 
fanclion,  the  preamble  always  ftates  that  "  his  majefty  ivould  en- 
deavour to  obtain  a  law  for  ratifying  the  treaty."  Such  is  the 
language  and  conduct  of  monarch s,  and  what  is  our's  ?  we 
bluih!  weblufh! 

Refohedy  That  while  we  ftigmatize  the  man,  and  execrate  his 
conducl:,  (John  Jay)  we  rejoice  he  has  been  made  an  inffrument 
to  draw  forth  the  whole  united  voice  of  the  people  of  America 
in  detcftation  of  his  treaty  !  "We  congratulate  each  other,  that 
from  this  truly  marked  circumftance,  our  great,  our  generous 
ally,  will  form  proper,  a  true  judgment  of  the  difpofition  of 
the  United  States  !  that  fhe  will  diftinguifh  between  the  peo-r 
pie  and  a  part  of  its  government!  that  they  will  fee  our  hearts 
never  ceafed  to  beat  in  unifon  with  their's ! — of  all  poflible 
temporal  evils  which  could  ever  fall  upon  us,  we  deprecate  a 
difference  with  France  ! 

Refolvedy  That  we  pledge  ourfelves  to  our  brethren  of  the 
republican  focieties  throughout  the  union,  as  far  as  the  ability 
and  individual  influence  of  a  moft  numerous  fociety  can  be 
made  to  extend,  that  we  will  promote  every  conflitutional 
means  to  bring  John  Jay  to  a  trial,  and  to  juflice.  He  lhall  not 
efcape',  if  guilty,  that  punifliment,  which  at  once  will  wipe  of? 
the  temporary  itain  laid  on  us,  and  be  a  warning  to  traitors, 
hereafter,  how  they  fport  with  the  intercft  and  feelings  of  their 
fellow-citizens  ! 

Rffofvedf  That  every  compliment  is  due  to  the  watchful 
zeal  of  our  fellow-citizens  of  Charlefton  ;  to  the  great  abili- 
ty fhown  bv  their  committee  in  their  elucidation  of  the  treaty.. 


Franklin  Society.  113 

Wc  warmly  embrace  and  adopt  their  report:  it  demonstrates 
great  moderation ;  but,  with  fuch  provocation  !  we  would  not 
have  been  quite  fo  tender  ! 

Refolved,  That  we  heartily  approbate   the  reprefentation  of 
our  wrongs  made  by  our  own  district  (Washington-)  it  proves 
that  we  are  neither  defective  in  knowledge,    nor   deficient  in 
duty  ;  that  we  know  our  intereft  as   citizens,  that  we    feel    a 
tender   concern  lor  the   whole   commonwealth  of  America  : 
this  we    will  teach  as    the  firft   of  principles   to  our  children; 
we  will  endeavor  to  imprefson  them  th*  nonfenfe  and  folly  of 
involving  themfelves  with  the  people  of  Europe,  eternally  cut- 
ting each    other's   throats ;  we    will    urge  to  pofterity,  that 
America  need  only  lie  Hill ;   that  let  her  markets  be  but   well 
fupplied,  all  Europe  will  be  the  buyers  ;    that  they  cannot  do 
without  us  ;  to  have  no  connection  with  the  old  governments 
by  treaties,  no  written  agreements;  for  the  omillion  of  a  com- 
ma may  involve  us  in  a  war  !   In  this  happy,   but   envied  Situ- 
ation,  had  a  gracious   providence  placed  us;   and,   guided  by 
thefe  principles,  we  Should  have  had  no  wars.  But,  the    dae- 
mon of  difcord  entered  into  a  Jay,  and  He  Hew  to  England  to 
blaft  our  riling  hopes,  to  involve  us  with  compacts  and  trestles  1 
Rgjblved,  That  in  the  investigation  of  this  buflnefs,    not  to 
have  difcovered  warmth — a  warmth  refulting  from  the  glowing 
piclure  of  danger  which  our  country  exhibits,   by  a  tame  fub- 
miffion  in  its  government,  to  the  molt  flagrant  and  daring  out- 
rages !  would  have  betrayed  a  ftoicifm  unworthy  of  the  fub- 
jccl,  unworthy  of  the  fons  of  1776  !    And  fhould  it  be  corifi- 
dered  that  unnecessary   afperity  has  difcovered  itfelf  to  a   na- 
tion, of  whom  we  ought  and  mutt  be  jealous  while  the  crown 
is  upon  its  prefent  head,  we  wilh  to  make  known  to  the  world, 
and  to  Britain  and  Ireland  in  particular,  that  we   difcriminate 
between  the  honeft.  and  the  flavifh  parts  of  their  people;  between 
the  two  nations  and  their  governments  !    Yes,  congenial  and 
generous  fouls  !    we  know  you    always  longingly   anticipated 
our  welfare  and  rank  among  nations,  and  ever  participated  in 
our  diitreiTes,  and  in  our  happinefs.  No  !  'tis  your  government 
that  we  hold  in  abhorrence  ! — a  government,  with,  one  excep- 
tion,   fmgularized  from    all  the   nations   of  the  world  by   the 
number  and  extravagance!  by  the  foulnefs  and  bJacknels    oi 
its  crimes  ! 

Refclved,  finally ,  That  the  vice-moderator,  the  correfponcC 
ing  fecretary,  and  Secretary  of  the  fociety,  do  !ign  the  foregoing 
relolutions;  and  that  they  be  generally  printed,  asexpreShveoFoui 
abhorrence  and  deteftation  of  a  treaty,  which  giv«a  to  the  Engr 


H4  Reflrctions  os 

lifli  government  more  power  over  us  as  ftates,  than  it  ever 
claimed  over  us  as  colonies,  and  which,  if  Britain  had  been 
left  to  her  gencrofity,  Jhe  ivould  have  been  ajhamed  to  propc/e ! — 
a  treaty,  involving  in  it  pufillanimity,  ftupidity,  ingratitude, 
and  treachery  !  to  blaft  the  riling  grandeur  of  our  common, 
country,  of  our  infant  empire  ! 

SAMUEL  LOFTON,  fen.  Vice-moderator. 

J.  MILLER,  Correfponding  Secretary. 

Ed.  TATE  M'CLURE,  Secretary  of  the  Society. 


Some  ohfervations  on  a  letter  faid  to  be  written  by  a  gentleman  of 
character  and  information  in  Vermonts  and  bearing  date  the 
iZtbJulylaft*. 

I  Will  not  venture  to  afcertain  what  was  the  real  view  of 
the  letter  writer  •,  he  is,  at  all  events,  very  wroth  with 
the  citizens  of  great  cities,  principally,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
becaufe  be  fufpects  they  will  dare  to  intermeddle  in  poli- 
ties, without  obtaining  his  permiflion,  or  at  leaft  without 
being  on  his  fide.   It  is  impoffible,  however,  to  avoid  obferving, 

*  From   the  Minerva. 

The  following  is  an  authentic  extract  of  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  of  cha- 
racter and  information  in  Vermont;  for  the  truth  of  which  we  pledge  our- 
iclves    It  conies  from  a  man  of  fevcnty-/ix,  and  is  dated  July  18, 1795. 

"  The  treaty  of  peace  has  now  become  a  general  fubjevEt  of  converfation  ; 
but  is  wot  as  yet  enough  known  to  form  the  public  mind.  It  is  impoffible 
fertile  madmen  in  politics  to  communicate  their  madnef*  to  the  fubftantial  and 
numerous  body  of  c<  untry  farmers.  They  do  not  reverence  the  cufloms,  man- 
ners, or  violent  party,  inflammatory  writings  of  your  zealous  political  fa- 
natics. And  while  thofe  kind  of  writers  pleafe  thcmfelvei  with  the  conceit 
that  they  are  enlightening  the  age  and  the  world,  they  have  no  idea  in  what 
contempt  their  productions  are  viewed  in  the  country.  In  fentiment  and  in- 
formation, l!iey  are  below  the  understanding  of  every  country  farmer;  and 
the  declamatory,  violent  ftile  finks  them  fliJl  lower,  in  rural  eftimation.  Wt 
arc  apprehenfirve  that  fome  of  the  large  cities  will  endeavour  to  fct  their  mobs 
in  motion,  with  a  view  to  dictate  to  the  prefident  and  fenate.  Be  aiTured  wc 
■will  reject  the  federal  union, before  we  will  be  governed  in  the  country,  by 
the-  r.iobs  of  Philadelphia,  New- York,  or  Boflon.  Moderation,  in  fuch  a  cafe, 
would  be  an  error  ; — and  the  moment  your  mobs  arc  let  agoing,  you  eflab- 
Jilh  a  distinction  between  town  and  country,  which  you  will  not  eahly  get  rid 
of.  The  greatefl  and  worfl  of  all  political  events  that  the  country  would  fuf- 
fcr  would  be  to  have  the  government  of  it,  under  the  direction  of  fuch  tumul- 
tuous, outrageous,  latvlefs  aflemblies. 

"  The  aboVfe  is  to  carry  to  you  fome  idea  of  the  horror  we  entertain  of  a 
xnnb-ijovcrnmcnt.  Be  lb  good  as  to  remember  the  articles  of  bufinefe." 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  115 

that  without  his  knowing  what  had  really  happened  in  thefe 
cities,  the  obvious  errors  in  the  treaty  are  fo  conspicuous,  and, 
in  contradiction  to  his  will,  obtrude  themfelves  fo  forcibly  on 
his  brain,  as  to  compel  on  his  mind  a  fufpicion,  that  mobs  will 
be  raifed,  while  his  wifh  appears  clearly  to  be,  that  no  oppofi. 
tion  fhould  be  made  againfl  its  obtaining  the  prefident's  figna- 
ture  j  Ihould  even  its  commercial  errors  be  ruinous  to  the 
trade,  and  its  political  errors  deft.ru6t.ive  to  the  liberties  and. 
peace  of  this  country. 

I  know  the  people  of  Vermont  well — they  are  quite  good 
citizens  ;  but  they   are  likewife  firm  and  inflexible  patriots. 

They  know  the  value  of  their  rights,  and  they  will,  if  necel- 
fary,  maintain  them  at  every  rifque. 

I  will  firlt,  therefore,  make  a  few  obfervations  on  fuch 
parts  of  this  extraordinary  inftrument,  as  appears  to  me  moft 
«vidently  wrong,  and  molt  pointedly  demonftrative,  that  ei- 
ther the  head  or  the  heart  of  the  man  who  framed  it,  was  ill 
calculated  for  executing  the  high  truft  repofed  in  him. 

And  fecondly,  aiiign  fome  reafons  why  the  people  of  Ver- 
mont, as  well  as  of  other  parts  of  this  extended  country,  will 
purfue  every  conflitutional  method  in  their  power,  to  prevent 
its  becoming  the  fupreme  law  of  the  land. 

The  fecond  article  is,  in  my  opinion,  an  indelible  (lain  up- 
on the  honour  and  dignity  of  the  nation;  for,  by  agreeing 
that  the  ports  (hall  not  be  delivered  up  till  the  firft  of  June 
1796,  without  any  ilronger  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Bri- 
tifli  for  the  furrender  of  them  at  that  period,  than  we  had  at 
the  treaty  of  peace,  it  is  tacitly  agreed,  that  the  unjuft  reten- 
tion of  them  was  no  infraction  of  that  treaty. 

Where  was  that  genius  of  America,  which  governed  its 
councils  at  the  termination  of  the  war  ?  who,  in  a  firm  and 
manly  tone,  told  this  haughty  and  imperious  government  of 
Great-Britain,  that,  "  we  will  not  fpeak  on  the  fubjedr.  of 
peace  till  you  have  firft  acknowledged  our  independence." 

Or  are  our  prefent  claims  to  thefe  pofts,  after  being  abfolute- 
ly  ceded  to  us  bv  a  former  treaty,  made  with  that  very  govern- 
ment, lefs  valid  or  lefs  conclufive,  than  a  claim  to  that  inde- 
pendence which  we  then,  in  fuch  unqualified  terms,  declared, 
ihould  actually  form  the  bafis  of  the  treaty  ?  No,  but  our 
then  minifters  were  different  men,  and  had  very  different  views 
from  v/\\ztfome  of  them  have  at  prefent. 

If  the  third  article  is  conftrued  literally,  it  certainly  does  not 
provide  for  a  free  trade  between  Vermont  and  Canada,  by  the 
way  of  Lake  Champlain.  The  words  are,   "  but  it  is  under* 


U 6  Reflections   otf* 

flood  ihit  this  article  does  not  extend  to  the  admiffiori  of  vcf* 
of  the.  United  States,  into  the  fea-ports,  harbours,  bays 
or  creeks  of  his  majeity's  faid  ten  itches  ;  nor  into  fuch  parts 
of  the  rivers  in  his  majeity's  laid  territories,  a?  are  between  the1 
m  rath  thereof  and  the  higbefi  port  of  entry  from  the  fea,  except 
in  fraall  velfels,  trading  bona  fide  between  Montreal  and  Que- 
bec." 

St.  John's,  at  tke  bottom  of  Lake  Champlain,  is,  ftrictly 
fpeaking,  a  Britifh  port  of  entry,  -where  the  American  veffelsy 
as  well  as  ;:)1  craft  horn  Canada,  for  any  part  of  that  Lake^ 
have  entered  and  cleared  out.  ever  fince  the  peace  ;  the  Ver-^ 
mont  trade,  therefore,  by  this  ufeful  lake,  mult,  on  a  rigorous 
conftructaon  of  that  article,  flop  at  that  port. 

Hon-  far  the  people  of  that  Hate  may  cfleem  themfelves 
obliged  to  mr.  Jay,  for  leaving  fo  beneficial  a  branch  of  their 
trade,  fubject  to  fuch  an  indefinite,  uncertain  conftrudhon, 
I  will  not  fay. 

The  actual  evil  whicli  may  arife  from  the  ninth  article,  de- 
pends in  a  great  degree,  upon  the  quantity  of  land  now  held  by 
Britifh  fubjects.  If,  as  is  faid  by  many,  they  at  this  moment 
hold  feveral  millions  of  acres,  the  prefent  proprietors  may,  ei- 
ther on  their  leafe  or  lale  thereof,  to  actual  fettlers,  make  it  a 
condition,  thai  they  pall  remain  Britifh  fubjecls  ;  in  this  cafe* 
a  fhort  time  would  probably  difcover  the  benefits  which  would 
accrue  from  having  one  or  iivo  millions  of  Britifh  fubjecls  actual 
fettlers  en  our  frontiers,  v.  ho,  the  treaty  declares,  "  fhall  not,  as 
far  as  may  relpecl  the  faid  lands,  and  the  legal  remedies  in- 
cident thereto,  be  regarded  as  aliens  ;"  a  due  attention  to  the" 
twenty-fixth  article  of  the  treafy,  will  poffibly  enable  many 
good  republicans  to  difcover  mr.  Jay's  real  intentions;  for 
even  in  cafe  of  ivar,  though  they  fhall  remain  Britifh  fubjectSy 
they  cannot  be  compelled  to  quit  the  country  as  long  "  as  they 
behave  peaceably,  and  commit  no  offence  againfl  the  laws." 
Many  of  us  remember  the  diitreffes  fuffered  by  the  patriots 
of  this  country  lafl  war,  by  only  a  few  of  fuch  men  being 
amongll  us.  It  was  beft,  perhaps,  not  to  have  thefe  two  arti- 
cles of  the  treaty  too  near  each  other. 

But  1  would  afk   "  the  gentleman  of  character  and  infor- 
mation in  Vermont."  by  what  part  of  the  conltitution  of  the 
United  States,  congrefs  at  large,  much  lefs  the  fenate  and  preft- 
dent,  have  the  power  of  declaring  that  aliens  fhall,  in  any  in- 
Jlatce,  have  a  right  to  hold  lands  within  any  one  flate  i 

I  am  fafe  in  averring,  that  each  flate  has  hitherto  claimed 
1ihe  excluftve  privilege  of  granting  or  prohibiting  that  right. 

And  the  third  fechon  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  conftitu- 


Mr.  Jav's  Treaty.  117 

•lion,  after  granting  to  congrefs,  "  power  to  difpofe  of  and 
'make  ail  needful  rule»  and  regulations  refpecling  the  territo- 
ry or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States"  explicitly 
declares,  that  "  nothing  in  this  confhtution  fhall  be  fo  conftru- 
ed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States,  or  of  any 
•particular  (late" 

Docs  die  letter  writer  imagine,  that  the  people  of  Vermont, 
bccaule  they  arc  known  to  be  truly  federal,  will  tamely  fubmit 
•to  fee  their  ftate  deprived  of  a  privilege  fo  important  and  ex- 
*enfiv«,  :md  fo  pointedly  guarded  to  them  by  the  conftitution 
of  the  United  titites,  Without  ever  remonftrating  againft  it  ? 

I  wifh  to  heavens  that  the  letter  writer  was  the  only  man  in 
America,  who  would  facrificc  the  rights  of  his  J- ate,  to  the  pre- 
dominancy of  his  party. 

The  tenth  article,  which  declares,  that  "  neither  the  debts 
•due  from  itulividu.ds  of  the  one  nation  to  the  individuals  of 
another,  nor  (hares,  nor  monies  vhich  they  may  have  in  the 
public  funds,  or  in  the  public  or  private  banks,  fhall  ever,  in 
any  event  of  war,  or  national  ditfcrences,  be  fequeftered  or  con- 
fifcated,"carrics,Ireadily  acknov.  ledge,  the  appearanceof  honor 
nnd  honefty,  on  the  very  face  of  it;  but  unfortunately  in  mak- 
ing the  diftribution  of  the  confequences  of  that  ftipulation,  en- 
tered into  between  the  contracting  parties,  all  the  benefits  arif- 
ing  therefrom  go  td  the  fide  of  the  Britifh  only,  and  all  the 
difadvantages  to  the  fide  of  this  country;  we  having  fcarce  any 
money  in  their  funds,  or  any  debts  due  by  them  to  us  ;  while 
they  have  immenfe  fums  under  our  controul,  which  ought  to 
have  been  maintained  in  that  fituation,  for  the  exprefs  purpofe 
of  being  a  preventative  againtt  fuch  a  predatory,  difgracefuL 
warfare,  as  they  have  waged  againlt  us,  nvith  impunity,  for  up- 
wards of  two  years. 

Far  am  I  from  thinking,  that  either  a  fequeftration  or  coh- 
fifcation  ought  to  take  place  on  any  flight  or  frivolous  occafion. 
May  the  honor  and  integrity  of  the  United  States  become 
proverbial  throughout  the  habitable  world. 

To  explain  myfelf  by  a  homely,  but  I  think,  ftriking  fimile, 

I  will  fuppofe    that  our  friend,    mr. ,    who    is  a  man 

twice  as  flrong  as  I  am,  had  frequently  met  me  in  the  high- 
Way,  and  had  fometimes  feverely  drubbed  me,  at  other  times, 
had  thrown  me  in  the  mud,  and  ruined  my  clothes  ;  that  I  had 
made  frequent  remonftrances  againlt  this  ill  treatment,  but  in 
vain,  having,  to  all  my  mild  remonftrances,  and  humiliating 
petitions,  received  from  him,  nothing  butvindi&ive,  and  fuperci- 
lious  replies  ;  that  at  lult  I  loaded  a  piftol  of  his,  which  happen* 

Vol.  Ill,  R 


rig  REFLECTIONS    ON 

ed  to  be  in  my  houfe,  put  it  into  my  pocket,  and  threatened  t# 
blow  his  brains  out  the  next  time  he  ever  attacked  me  on  the 
Highway  -,  that  I  then  fern  a  friend,  on  whole  good  fenfe  and 
integrity  I  ftrongly  relied,  for  the  purpofe  of  adopting  l'ome 
mode  for  terminating  all  our  difputes. 

That  this  friend,  after  having  fettled  on  terms  in  many  rc- 

fpecls  very  favourable  to  mr. ,  ftipulated,   in  the  moll 

pofitive  manner,  that,  though  it  was  profitable  and  convenient 
for  him  flill  to  leave  his  piflol  with  mc,  I  lhould  never  attempt 
to  ufe  it  in  my  own  defence  againlt  him,  even  to  fave  my  own 
life,  notwithstanding  a  future  attack,  on  his  part,  ihould  tue 
equally  violent,  virulent,  and  unprovoked,  as  thofe  which  he 
Jiad  formerly  made  on  me,  my   friend    obtaining  at   the  lame 

time,  a  promife  from  mr. ,  equally  obligatory  on  him,  that 

he  would  never  ufe  againlt  me,  a  little  popgun,  which  my 
friend  very  well  knew  could  not  poihbly  injure  me  more  thau 
by  taking  a  button  off  my  coat. 

In  this  ftate  of  the  cafe,  ought  I  to  retain  a  good  opinion  of 
either  my  friend  or  of  any  other  perfon  who  advifed  him  to 
the  meafure  ?  I  hefitate  not  to  anfwer  that  I  never  would  place 
the  leaft  confidence  in  him  again,  but  {houid  ever  look  upon 
him,  and  them,  with  a  jeaiouseye,  as  men,  who,  from  iome 
iiniller  and  wicked  motives,  were  meditating  my  deftruction, 
efpecully  as  they  were  perfectly  fenfible,  that  both  my  intcreft 
and  inclination  would  prevent  me  from  ever  beginning  an 
attack  upon  him,  or  even  from  intentionally  giving  him 
offence. 

The  17th  article  declares,  that  the  goods  of  iemy  to 

Great-Britain,  fouadon  board   any  of  ourveikls,  liiaii  be le 

prize  of. 

This,  it  is  admitted,  is  agreeable  to  the  common  law  oi  na- 
tions, as  that  law  formerly  itood;  for  Vatel  lays,  page  507,  t^.at 
«'  effects,  belonging  to  an  enemy,  found  on  board  a  neutral 
ihin,  are  feizable  by  the  rights  of  war  •,  but,  by  the  law  of  na- 
ture, the  mailer  is  to  be  paid  his  freight,  and  not  to  fuffer  by 
the  feizure." 

Mr.  Jay  carefully  adhered  to  the  firft  part  of  this  maxim.  It 
is  certainly  very  favourable  to  the  Britifh.  The  fecond  part, 
which  refpe£ls  the  payment  of  the  freight,  is  negletted:  it  cer- 
tainly would  have  been  very  favourable  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

But,  when  our  worthy  prefident  iffued  his  proclamation  of 
neutrality,  he  predicated  it  upon  the  modern  law  of  nations  : 
an   adherence  to  which  would  have  prevented  our  minifter 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  119 

from  entering  into  a  pofitive  (lipulation  for  fuch  an  ignomi- 
nious conceffion. 

The  twenty-third  article  of  our  treaty  with  France,  the 
tenth  with  Holland,  the  feventh  with  Sweden,  the  twelfth 
with  Pruffin,  and  the  third  with  the  emperor  of  Morocco,  all  re- 
spectively flipulate.  in  the  molt  exprefs  terms,  that  free  mips 
fhall  make  free  goods,  though  thefe  goods  fhould  belong  to  the 
tfn'-my  of  either  of  thofe  nations.  Though  I  am  not  a  mer- 
chant, common  fenfe  points  out  to  me,  on  the  firlt  blufh,  the  ex- 
tenlive  advantages  which  mult  have  accrued  to  our  carrying- 
trade,  by  an  adherence  to  the  fame  plan  in  our  prefent  treaty 
with  Great-Britain.  Did  the  recollection  of  the  innumerable 
favours  which  Great-Britain  has  heaped  on  us  from  the 
nineteenth  April,  1775^0  the  very  moment  at  which  he  fign- 
ed  the  treaty,  overwhelm  our  ambaflador  with  neck-loads  of 
gratitude,  that  he  forgot  that  this  article  was  diametrically  op- 
pohte  to  our  ftipulation  with  every  other  nation  with  whom 
we  had  a  treaty  ? 

I  do  not  mean,  that  our  ot1i«r  treaties  precluded  him  from 
the  right  of  entering  into  this  ftipulation.  I  only  wifh  to  fhow, 
that,  while  France  and  other  friendly  nations  had  voluntarily 
granted  to  us  this  ineftimable  pririkge  in  our  very  indigent 
<lays,  our  ambaffador,  though  to  the  higheft  prejudice  of 
that  nation,  meanly  and  cringingly  ceded  it  to  Great-Britain,  in 
the  height  of  our  profperity  !  Or  did  he  imagine  it  would 
pleafe  his  countrymen,  to  proclaim  to  the  world,  chat,  like  true 
fpaniels,  they  fawned  molt  on  thofe  from  whom  they  had  the 
feverelt  whippings  ? 

I  feel  for  the  honor  of  my  country,  and  prav  to  my  God, 
that,  though  fhe  is  fallen,  it  may  not  be  for  ever. 

But  perhaps  this  part  of  the  treaty,  as  well  as  feveral  other 
parts,  were  entered  into  for  the  exprefs  purpofe  of  diftreflin<r 
•  the  French  nation,  and  thereby  occafioning  a  rupture  between 
them  and  us.  IF  this  was  really  mr.  Jay's  policy,  I  think  it  is 
far  from  being  improbable,  that  we  may  foon  reap  the  fruits  of 
ins  labour,  by  fully  experiencing  the  good  or  bad  erfedta 
thereof. 

The  eighteenth  article,  regulating  what  is  in  future  to  be 
•deemed  contraband,  is  fo  Superlatively  humiliating  and  degrad- 
ing to  oirrfolves  ;  fo  plainly  and  unequivocally  levelled  againfr 
che  fuccelsof  our  ally,  that  even  Camillus  rinds  himfelf  com- 
pelled to  make  a  wayward  apology  for  it. 

Poor  Camillus,  thou  watt  then  driven  to  thy  laft  fhift  in- 
d"cd,  and  heaven  knows  that  thou  art  pofTelt  of  more  of  them 


120  Reflections  on 

"in  the  defence  of  a  bad  caufe,  than  any  man  of  thy  country  wn 
ever  before. 

In  this,  as  in  the  former  article,  our  extraordinary  ambajja* 
dor  has  (Updated,  that  naval  flores,  &c.  (hall  be  deemed  con. 
traband,  and  liable  to  capture;  though  it  will  appear  by  the 
twenty-fourtharticleofour  treaty  withFrance,the  twenty-fourth 
with  Holland,  the  tenth  with  Sweden,  the  thirteenth  with  Ptul 
fia,  and  the  third  with  the  emperor  of  Morocco,  that  we  have 
contracted,  that  they  mail  not  be  contraband.  Nay,  what,  as  fay, 
as  is  poflible,  adds  to  the  difgrace  of  this  part  of  the  treaty^ 
even  Great-Britain  herfelf,  in  her  commercial  treaty,  with 
France,  declares  that  they  (hall  not  be  contraband. 

What  opinion  our  ally  will  entertain  of  our  friendship  for 
her — what  opinion  the  world  at  large  will  entertain  of  our  mag* 
nanimity,  good  fjjth,  and  gratitude  as  a  nation,  and  in  what  dc* 
gree  of  eftimation  our  minifter  will  be  held  by  his  fellow  citw 
zens  at  fome  future  period,  time  only  can  fully  unravel. 

If  even  theextacy  of  joy,  upon  being  permitted  the  honor  of 
kifhrtg  the  queen's  hand,  was  fo  exceflive,  as  to  obliterate  from 
his  mind,  that  cotton  was  a  branch  of  the  produce  of  his  coun- 
try, it  is  fcarcely  poflible  to  fuppofe,  that  the  pleafure  conti- 
nued fo  extremely  ravifhing  during  the  whole  ntgociation,  as. 
to  make  him  forget  that  there  were  two  fuch  dates  as  Virginia 
and  North-Carolina^  a  great  proportion  of  whole  trade,  by  this, 
ihameful  conceiTion,  he  was  facrificing  at  the  fhrine  of  their;- 
bittereft  enemy. 

The  twenty-firft  article  defines  what  piracy  is,  and  deter-, 
mines  what  the  punifhment  thereof  fhali  be,  by  faying,  *'  that 
if  any  fubject  or  citizen  of  the  laid  parties  reipeciively,  (hall 
accept  any  foreign  commiflion  or  letters  of  marque,  for  arming 
any  veflel  to  a£t.  as  a  privateer  againft  the  other  party,  and  be 
taken  by  the  other  party,  it  is  hereby  declared  to  be  lawful  for 
the  laid partyy  to  tre?.t  and  punifh  the  fajd  fubject  or  citizen, 
having  fuch  commiflion,  or  letters  of  marque,  as  a  pirate." 

The  eighth  fection  of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  declares,  that  "  congrefs  fhall  have  the  power  to  define 
and  puni/Jj  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on  the  high  feas,  and 
offences  againft  the  law  of  nations." 

The  curfe  of  oblivion  feems  to  have  pervaded  our  minifter's 
brain  in  every  part  of  this  treaty,  which  did  not  embrace  fome 
point  favourable  to  the  Britifh ;  foe  here  again,  he  has  forgot 
that  the  houfe  oj ' reprefeni laiivt s  are  an  abfolute  (though  in  his 
opinion,  probably  a  very  trifling)  part  of  congrefs;  and  as  they 
were  not  to  be  confulted  about  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  \z\ 

this  treaty,  he  ought  to  have  fcen  that  he  was  entering  into  an 
agreement  which  the  fenate  could  not  approve  of,  nor  the  pre- 
sident ratify,  without  a  palpable  breach  of  the  conftitution. 

But  for  argument's  fake,  I  will  for  a  moment  fuppofc  it  con- 
stitutional, and  I  will  likewife  acknowledge,  that  by  the  twen- 
ty-firft  article  of  our  treaty  with  France,  the  nineteenth  with 
Holland, and  the  twenty-chird  with  Sweden,  the  lame  crime  was 
by  our  then  congrefs  ( not  bv  apart  of  it  J  deemed  a  piracy ;  but 
muft,  at  the  fame  time,  infift,  that  the  manner  of  punilhmcnt 
is  defcribed  in  a  very  different  way.  In  each  of  thefe  treaties 
the  words  are  thefe,  «  and  if  any  perfon  of  either  nation  lhall 
take  fuch  commiflions  or  letters  of  marque,  hejljall  be pumjbed 
as  a  pirate." 

In  our  treaties  with  Pruffia  and  the  emperor  of  Morocco,  ir 
is  ftipulated,  that  «'  fubjetts,  nor  citizens  of  either  party,  {hall 
take  commifH>ns  from  any  power  with  whom  either  of  the 
contracting  parties  may  be  at  war*,"  but  no  punifhment  whate- 
ver is  affixed  to  the  breach  of  that  article. 

By  our  treaty,  then,  on  this  head,  with  the  firft  three  nations 
above  mentioned,  the  offender  againlt  the  article  was,  1  con- 
ceive, upon  complaint  made,  or  information  lodged,  to 
be  tried,  as  the  conftitution  directs,  by  a  jury  of  his  countrymen 
confpicuous  for  their  moderation,  lenity  and  jufticej  and,  if 
ftrong  extenuating  circumftances  appeared  in  his  favour,  fhould 
even  the  jury  efteem  themfelves  obliged  to  condemn  him, 
agreeable  to  the  letter  of  the  lav  ,  they  might,  nevertheless,  for- 
cibly recommend  him  to  that  branch  ot  the  government,  in 
whole  hands  the  pleafing  power  of  Ihowing  mercy  is  fo  wifely 
placed. 

As  no  punifhment  is  annexed  to  the  crime  by  our  treaty 
with  the  other  two  powers,  the  offender  muft  have  been  tried 
upon  common  principles. 

Mr.  Jay  has  the  honour  of  being  the  firft  American  minifter, 
who  ever  had  the  courage  by  public  act,  to  declare,  in  exprefs 
terms,  that  his  fellow-citizens  are  liable  to  be  condemned  as 
pirates,  by  a  Britifh  court  of  admiralty,  for  an  atlt  of  which  the 
law  of  nations  renders  even  the  criminality  doubtful. 

What  does  he  really  fay  on  this  head  of  the  treaty  ?  Kxer- 
cifinghis  molt  inventive  talents  to  enrage  his  fellow-citi/.en- 
to  fome  improper  unconltitutional  a£t,  he  virtually  tells  tHem, 
I  fee  that  you  it  ill  remain  equally  attached  to,  equally  ena- 
moured with  the  principles  of  liberty,  as  you  did  when  I  wa« 
a  pacific  bcllower  in  that  caufe,  and  therefore,  that  your  attach* 
jnent  to  the  French  nation,  in  her  prefent  conteft,  may  lead  fome 


121  "UtrLrcTTbNS  Ov 

of  you  to  engage  as  volunteers  in  her  fervice,  depending  upon 
that  principle  in  the  laws  of  nations,  declared  by  Vatel,  page 
594»  in  the  following  words,  "  volunteers  taken  by  the  enemy 
are  treated  as  if  part  of  the  army  in  which  they  fight."  No- 
thing can  be  more  reafonable.  They,  in  fael,  unite  themfelves  to 
this  army.  They  fupport  the  fame  cauie,  no  matter  whether  it 
befrom  obligation  or  free  will. 

But,  continues  Mr.  Jay,  I  will  rifle  deviating  materially  from 
the  words  of  every  treaty  hitherto  entered  into  by  the  United 
States,  ihould  my  ad  even  be  an  unconftitutional  one,  and  de- 
ehreth.it,  if  fighting  in  this  caule  you  are  taken  by  the  Englifh, 
it  ih.-M  be  in  their  power  '.o  hang  you  as  pirates. 

Gracious  God  !  ye  heroes  who  were  the  glorious  copartners 
of  the  brave  little  French  army  at  the  fiege  of  York-Town,  and 
fhared  with  thtm  the  honor  of  fighting,  bleeding  and  conquer- 
ing hi  the  cauie  of  freedom  !  can  you  believe,  that  your  old 
commander  in  chief  will  ever  give  hra  fan&ion  to  fuch  an  adl: 
as  this?  The  queftion,  I  acknowledge,  is  unneceffary  •,  for  (the 
It  w  who  wifli  to  embroil  us  wih  that  nation  excepted)  you  will 
•miverfally  exclaim — he  never — never  will  do  it. 

Permit  me  only  to  add,  that  it  is  an  infult  even  to  afk  him.. 


No.  II. 

"W  I  LL   now  beg  leave  to  recapitulate  the  p?.rts  of  thi» 
treaty,  which  I  have  deemed  reproachable  :  let  my  obfer- 
vattons  thereon  fpeak  for  themfelves. 

iff.  The  furrender  of  the  pofts  ought  to  have  been  made 
the  bafis  of  the  treaty  ;  inflead  of  which  they  are  to  be  held 
until  the  firit  of  July,  1796. 

id.  The  third  article,  amonft  other  obje&ions  to  it,  is  (o 
wonk'fl,  fti  to  auor^  ar  lead  ftrong  pretentions  for  preventing 
the  people  oi  Vc;  Wont  from  any  inland  trade  with  Canada, 
farther  than  St.  John's  at  the  bottom  of  the  Lake  Champlairu 

3d.  The  ninth  article  allowing  Britifh  fubjecls  to  hold  lands, 
is  not  only  unconftitutional,  but,  as  by  the  16th  article,  they 
may,  even  in  cofe  of  a  war;  remain  dill  as  Britifh  fubjefts, 
provided  t!:cy  brhave  pencer.bly,  we  may  have  within  our  very 
bowels  one  (>r  two  millions  of  Britifh  fubjecls,  whom  we  can* 
not,  ithout  a  breach  of  faith,  evpcl  from  this,  during  the  time 
"we  are  engaged  in  a  war  with  their  country. 

The  tenth  article  yields  up  the  only  fhield  of  protec- 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  1.23 

tion  we  arc  poffcfTed  of  againft  fuch  a  predatory  war  as  Great- 
Britain  has  carried  on  againft  us  for  thefe  two  years  paft  -y 
while  our  minifter  (as  fhall  hereatter  be  ihowed)  lias  neglect- 
ed to  ltipulate  in  return  iormanyot  thefe  advantages  granted 
to  us  in  our  other  treaties. 

5th.  The  Seventeenth  article  (hamefully  furrenders  to  the 
wanton  plunder  oi  Se  fJiuil'u  robber,  the  right  of  capturing 
thepropertv  if  ur  ally  when  found  in  our  vcfllls,  though  our 
treaty  witn  every  other  nation,  particularly  with  that  very 
allv,  for  the  purpofe  of  fottening  the  rigours  of  w  ur,  declares 
that  "  free  flaps  fhall  make  tree  goods." 

Surely  our  minifter  might  at  leaft  have  permitted  this  part 
of  the  treaty  to  have  flood  on  the  cxilthig  principles  of  the 
law  of  nations,  without  fanctitying  a  Britifh  right  in  the 
plunder  of  our  ally's  property,  and  the  deltruclion  of  a  moil 
beneficial  part  of  our  own  trade. 

6th.  The  eighteenth  article,  which  permits  naval  fibres, 
&c.  to  be  deemed  contraband,  though  all  our  other  treaties  ex- 
prefsly  Jlipulate  that  they  fliall  NOT  be  tleemed  cotitrabdful,  meets 
with  a  much  more  fevcre  chaitifement,  than  it  could  pollibly 
receive  from  any  observation  of  mine,  through  the  pen  of  the 
partial,  and  probably  well-paid  Camillus,  who  admits,  "  thai 
it  is  the  mojl  indcfenftble  part  of  the  treaty." 

7th.  The  twenty-firit  article,  which  fubftantially  delivers 
to  the  fangs  of  a  Britifh  tyrant,  to  be  punifhed  by  him  as  a 
pirate,  every  citizen  of  the  United  States,  whole  heart,  throb- 
bing for  an  opportunity  of  dii  covering  his  love  of  freedom, 
may  lead  him  to  rifque  his  lite  in  the  defence  of  "  the  rights 
of  man,"  merits,  aud  mull  meet  with  the  execration  of  every 
man  who  loves  this  country,  and  the  rational  liberty  hitherto 
enjoyed  therein. 

Having  now  pointed  out,  from  the  many,  a  few  of  the  mod 
glaring  exceptionable  features  of  the  treaty,  the  well-known 
children  of  our  minifter,  by  the  actual  fin  of  commillion,  I 
will  next  endeavour  to  exhibit  fome  of  thofe,  which  are  equal- 
ly diftinguifhablc,  but  have  arofe  from  the  fin  of  omiilion. 

In  the  fixth  article  of  the  treaty,  a  circumfped:  care  is  taken 
«'  that  full  and  complete  compensation  is  to  be  made,  to  Bri- 
tilh  merchants,  and  others  his  majclty's  fubjeds,  who  had 
debts  due  from  citizens  01  the  United  States,  and  who,  by  the 
operations  of  various  lawful  impediments  lincethe  peace,  Sec. 
have  not  received  full  and  adequate  compenfation  for  their 
loffes  and  damages."  But  how  muck  greater  have  the  loffes 
and  damages  been  to  the  United  States  by  the  detention  of 
4hc  polls  i  When  we  take   into  view  ail  the  coufeauences  of 


124  Reflections  on 

the  Indian  war  nnd  the  lofs  of  the  fur  trade,  how  are  we  fur* 
prized  to  find,  that  not  a  word  is  lifped  about  «  a  full  and 
COI   plcte  compenfation"  to  be  made  on  that  account  ! 

If,  agreeable  to  mr.  Jay's  opinion,  both  parties  have  broke 
rhe  treaty,  is  it  reasonable,  or  juft,  that  the  one  fhould  be  paid 
for  the  damages  arifing  therefrom,  and  the  other  fhould  not  ? 
especially  as  mr.  Jcfferfon  has  proved  the  breach  did  not  com- 
mence with  us. 

Our  mir.ilrer,  too,  had  forgot  to  obtain  payment  for  the 
negroes  which  Great-Britain  promifed,  in  the  treaty  of  peace, 
fhould  not  be  "  carried  away,"  and  yet  were  carried  away  to 
the  amount  of  many  thoufands! 

The  Bnt'iJJ)  Camillas,  it  is  true,  endeavours  to  (how,  that 
they  ought  not  to  be  paid  for  ;  but  I  well  remember  to  have 
feen  in  the  journals  of  congrefs,  a  pointed  motion  of  the  uime- 
rican  mr.  Hamiltoiis  (foon  alter  the  peace)  remonftrating 
ngainll  their  being  carried  away  ;  and  molt  men  believe,  that 
mr.  Hamilton  was  then  a  man  oi  equal  good  fenfe,  and  much 
more  friendly  to  the  interefts  of  the  United  States,  than  Ca- 
millus  is  now. 

As  Great-Britain  is  admitted,  by  all  parties,  to  be  the  great- 
eft  maritime  nation  in  the  world,  itmuft  likewifebe  admitted, 
that  our  minilter  fhould  have  been  equally  guarded  in  procur- 
ing for  u:.,  as  far  as  he  pofhbly  could,  the  fame  favourable,  Iti- 
pulations,  in  cafe  of  a  rupture  with  her,  or  any  other  power, 
as  we  have  entered  into  with  other  nations. 

Mr.  Jay's  friends  fay,  that  he  is  a  man  of  firmnefs  ,-  I  am 
Aire  that,  as  an  ambafiador,  he  has  proved  himfelf  a  conjijlent 
man  ;  for  it  will  appear,  that  he  has  been  equally  negligent 
in  this  part  of  his  duty  as  in  others  already  pointed  out. 

By  the  fixth  article  of  our  treaty  with  France,  the  fifth  with 
Holland,  the  twenty- fecond  with  Pruflia,  and  the  third  fepa- 
rate  article  with  Sweden,  each  of  thefe  powers  refpectiveiy 
agrce,  in  cafe  of  their  having  a  common  enemy  with  us,  that 
they  will  take  our  veffels,  whenever  demanded,  and  defend  them 
in  the  fame  manner  as  they  would  their  oivn. 

Has  Great-Britain  made  any  fuch  provifion  ? — No. 

By  the  fourteenth  article  of  our  treaty  with  France,  goods 
belona'imf  to  us,  loaded  on  board  their  cnemy:s  veffels,  at  any 
time  previous  to  two  months  after  the  declaration  of  war,  if 
taken  by  them,  Jhall  be  reflored  to  us  ;  and  by  the  fifth  article  of 
our  treaty  with  Holland,  and  the  fourteenth  with  Sweden, 
our  goods  taken  by  them  in  the  fame  fituation,  fhall  be  reftor- 
ed,  provided  they  were  loaded  at  any  time  previous  to  fix 
months  after  the  declaration  of  war,  and  the  owner  of  the 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  125 

£t  eels  did  not  know  of  the  war  being  declared.  Has  Great- 
Brit  un  made  any  fuch   promife  ? — No. 

The  twenty-fourth  article  of  our  trenty  with  Pruflia  makes 
provifion  for  the  kind  and  hofpitable  treatment  of  prifoners, 
in  a  manner  which  docs  honor  toiiuman  nature,  and  ftandfc 
as  an  eulogium  on  that  philanthropy  of  difpofition,  which  has 
fo   conlpicuoufly  mined  in  all  the  acts  of  a  Franklin  and  a 

Is  there  any  fuch  flipulation  with  Great-Britain  ? — No. 

Was  it  neceffary  r 

Let  the  hiltory  of  the  fugar-hotife  at  New-Fork  and  Jerjiy 
prifon  ftjip>  during  the  laft  war,  determine  this  queftion. 

I  will  at  the  fame  time  confefs,  that  if  mr.  Jay  is  equally- 
careful  of  the  pcrfon  of  the prefent  governor  of  this  ftate,  [New- 
York]  as  he  was  of  Ids  own  at  the  time  Elopus  was  burnt, 
by  the  marauding  army  of  his  favourite  nation,  there  is  no 
riik  that  his  excellency  will  fuffer  from  this  neglect,  as  he 
wiil  not  become  a  prifoncr  till  the  Britifh  reach  the  mountains 
of  Kent.  A  defire  to  obey  his  excellency's  orders  will  produce 
an  explanation  ol  this,  whenever  he  is  pleafed  to  require  it. 

I  am  aware,  that  it  will  be  obferved,  that  as  there  were 
two  parties  to  the  treaty,  it  was  impoflible  for. mr.  Jay  to  ob- 
tain all  he  o-ilhed — Granted — But,  does  it  fellow  from  thence, 
that  in  the  humiliating  manner  he  has  done,  we  were  to  yield 
Up  to  the  ambitions  and  fupcrciiious  arrogance  of  the  other 
partj-,  whatever  flic,  in  the  agonizing  frenzy  of  departing  great* 
nefs,  might  think  proper  to  require. 

What  opinion  mult  the  other  nations  entertain  of  either  our 
honor  or  independence,  whole  treaties  with  us  arc  demon- 
(Irated  to  be  fo  much  more  in  our  favor,  than  the  one  mr.  Jay- 
has  thought  proper  to  fubmit  to  ? 

We  boalt  of  our  increafe  in  wealth,  in  numbers,  in  refpec- 
tability  as  a  nation,  all  ariGng  from  the  good  management  of 
the  political  machine,  by  thofe  who  have  the  prefent  direction 
thereof  :  and  yet  this  treaty  mud  give  the  lie  direct  to  that  af~ 
fertion  in  the  opinion  of  every  man,  not  intimately  acquainted 
with  our  true  lituatio_n  ;  becaufe  it  abjectly  crouches  beneath 
the  galling  yoke  of  Great-Britain,  and  fervilely  grants  to  her 
what  no  other  nation,  in  the  hour  of  our  greateft  diftrefs, 
before  we  had  even  thrown  off  our  fwaddling  bands t  ever  at- 
tempted to  demand  of  us. 

I  will  quit  this  firil  part  of  my  promife,  and  proceed  to  my 
fecond,  by  mowing  fome  reafons,  why  the  people  in  Vermont, 
as  well  as  in  other  parts  of  this  extended  country,  will  purfive 

Vol.  III.  S 


ii6  Reflections  oh 

every  legal  method  'in  their  power,  to  prevent-  its  becoming 
the  fuprcme  law  of  ti'.xe  land. 

It  is  well  known,  *hat  there  has  been,  for  many  years, 
throughout  the  yeomanry  of  this  country,  a  fettled  lpirit  of 
enmity  againft  the  liritifh  government,  ariiing,  anion  gft  other 
caufes,  from  the  remembrauce  of  their  favage  and  a&ive  cru- 
elties, during  the  lait  war,  the  hatred  difplayed  to  us  during 
the  peace,  and  their  unpar.-.i.eled  depredations  on  our  trade, 
fmce  the  commencement  of  thsir  war  with  France. 

And  as  this  treaty  entitles  the  yeople  of  that  nation  to  rights 
and  liberties  within  each  Mate,  which" cannot  be  conftitution- 
?lly  granted  but  by  the  it  are  itfelf  •,  that  part  of  the  yeomanry 
who  wifh  not  to  fee  the  conftitution  infringed  on,  or  the  power 
of  their  refpe&ive  ftates  fritter'd  down  to  that  of  f'mall  cor- 
porations, will  univerfally  oppofe  it. 

It  is  intended  to  difunite  us  from  our  ally,  to  whom  the 
yeomanry  of  this  country  get  every  day  more  and  more  at* 
tached  ;  and  they  will  therefore  oppofe  it. 

It  fubje&s  them  to  unconititutioal  punilhment,  for  efpouf- 
ing  the  Gaufe  of  freedom,  by  granting  their  alrdtance  to  this 
very  ally  ;  and  they  will  therefore  oppofe  it. 

It  was  formed  in  contradiction  to  the  cxpreffed  wiihes'of 
their  immediate  representatives  in  congrefs  ;  ami  they  will 
therefore  oppofe  it. 

They  will  reflect,  that  the  Britifh  Y/cft- Indies  are  dependent 
onus  for  their  veryexiftenee,as  is  fullydem  migrated  by  the  fre- 
quent petitions  of  their  inhabitants  to  the  Britift  parliament— 
That  we  confume  upwards  of  two-fifths  :>f  al  aasufac- 

tures  exported  from  Great-Britain — that  ihe  bal  in  radc 

with  us  it  about  twelve  millions  of  dollars  yearly  in  her  .  r.vor — * 
That  had  ihe  compelled  us  to  war,  our  privateers  would  have 
diftreffed  her  trade  in  a  degree  exceeding  the  bounds  of  calcu- 
lation; of  which  opinion,  the  number  of  Britifh  prizes  brought 
into  our  ports  lafr.  war,  affords  undeniable  proof — and  that  in 
a  very  fhort  time  ihe  muft  have  loft  all  her  poffcinons  on  the 
continent  of  North-America — That,under  thefe  confidcrations, 
a  wife,  a  firm,  an  hone  ft:  minifter  could  not  have  failed  in 
pr«  taring  us  terms  at  lectji  reciprocally  beneficial.  And  there- 
fore, they  will  oppofe  this  heterogenous  treaty,  begot  in  the 
dark,  and  ufhered  forth  to  pubkc  view,  againft  the  exprefs 
will  of  its  legitimate  parents,  who,  confeious  of  its  deformi- 
ty, wiflied  to  conceal  it  from  the  penetrating  eye  of  their 
countrymen  as  long  as  poffible. 

But  it  will  be  objected,  that  twenty  fenators  having  given 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  12? 

their  ianction  to  its  adoption,  is  prima  facie  evidence  that  ir 
mud  be  a  moil  excellent  treaty — Granted. 

And  it  will  be  anfwered,  that  ten  fenators  being  warmly  op- 
Ipofed  to  it,  and  every  tory  hi  the  country  extolling  it  as  the 
greatell  pro  >f  tl  '  ven  ever  furaiihed,  of  its  watchful  at- 
tention over  th<  :rty,  peace,  profperity,  welfare, 
and  independence  of  the  United  States,  is  likewifc  prima  facie 
(evidence  that  it  is  a  moft  d — n — able  treaty.  And  the  fenfible 
yeomanry  of  this  country,  after  fubtracting  the  one  evidence 
jfrom  the  other,  and  undine  the  balance  greatly  againft  the 
treaty,  v.  ill  therefore  more  firmly  oppofe  it. 

Man)  other  arguments  might  be  produced ;  but  I  (hall  flop 
here,  and  affign  fome  additional  reafons,  why  I  am  of  opinion, 
that  the  yeomanry  of  Vermont  will,  in  a  particular  manner, 
oppofe  it. 

Their  connection  with  Canada  has  given  them  frequent 
Opportunities  c'i  viewing  the  fupercilious,  haughty  deport- 
ment of  many  of  the  Bri  ,  to  whom  the  etiquette 
of  that  government  led  them  to  make  application  ;  and  they 
have  obferved  their  deep-rooted  contempt  of  republicanifm 
and  republican  manners.  They  will,  therefore,  oppofe  ait 
intimacy  of  national  connection. 

That  nate  has  been  fuperior  to  moft,  and  inferior  to  rione, 
in  point  of  fcderalifm  ,■  and  they  will,  therefore,  be  delicately 
careful  in  preventing  their  darling  conftitution  from  being, 
in  the  fmalleft  decree,  impaired  or  infringed  on. 

The  citizen;-,  of  that  itatc,  even  their  profeftional  men  of 
all  defcriptions,  are  (fpeaking  generally)  warm  admirers  of 
the  French  caufe,  though  they  do  not  attempt  tojuftiiyall 
their  actions  :  and  as  many  of  the  leading  features  of  this 
treaty  have  a  ftrong  tendency  to  diftrefs  that  caufe,  they  will 
oppofe  it  with  an  energy,  proportionate  to  their  love  of  ration- 
al liberty,  and  of  the  rights  of  man. 

But  taking  for  granted,  what  the  editor  of  the  Minerva  af- 
(erts,  that  the  unknown  letter-writer  in  Vermont,  is,  "  A 
gentleman  of  character  and  information,"  I  will  oppofe  his 
fentimeuts  by  thofe  of  another  citizen  of  that  ftate,  known 
by  his  writings  and  his  pleadings  to  be  really  "  a  genii 
of  character  and  information." — I  mean  judge  Chipman,  who, 
in  tlie  vcr  1793,  previous  to  this  budle  about  French  and 
Englifh  politics,  wrote  "  Ikctches  on  the  principles  of  go- 
.cnt,"  in  which  he  exhibits  maxims,  perfectly  conio- 
inant  with  thofc  maintained  by  the  prefent  oppofers  to  the  trea- 
ty, and  equally  repugnant  to  thofe  difplayed  by  the  learned 


^2$  Reflections  on 

letter  writer,  whofe  principal  aim,  as   far  as  he  chooi 
explain  himfelf,  appears  to  be  a  llrong  defire  cf  proving 
it  is  improper  for  the  people  to  inveftigate  the  treaty,   bui  to 
trull  to  the  well-known   abilities   and  integrity  of  the  com'ti? 
tuted  authorities — and  in  attempting  this,  his  language  is  ex-| 
tremely  indecorous,   and  even  indecent  ;  indeed,  lie  feems  tq 
have   borrowed  much  of  his  ftile  from  the  editor  of  the  Mi- 
nerva. 

The  letter-writer  fays,  in  great  heat,  {<  we  arc  apprehenT| 
five  that  fome  of  the  large  cities  will  endeavour  to  let  theitl 
tytohs  in  morion,  with  a  view  to  dictate  to  the  prefident  and 
ftnate.  Be  alTured"  we  will  reject  the  federal  government,  be- 
fore we  will  be  governed  in  the  country  by  the  mobs  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, New- York,  or  Bofton." 

And  does  it  comport  with  thy  opinion  of  the  people  of 
ihefe  cities,  mr.  letter  writer,  that  they  cannot  meet  quietly 
nnd  form  refolutions  on  a  fubjec~t,  not  only  of  the  utmolt  imr 
portance  to  themfelves,  but  their  pofterity,  without  becoming 
jioters  ?  Has  your  vanity,  on  being  permitted  to  correfpondi 
ivith  the  editor  of  the  Minerva,  fo  milled  your  underilanding, 
as  to  make  you  fuppofe  the  citizens  of  Vermont  could  be  fa> 
far  duped  as  to  believe,  that  a  riotous  mob,  and  a  Bolton  town 
meeting)  were  fynonimous  terms  ? 

Are  you  fo  extremely  credulous,  my  little  lord pompofty,  a? 
to  imagine,  that  this,  thy  pigmy  threat,  u  of  feparation  from 
the  federal  government,"  will  intimidate  the  freemen  of  Ver- 
mont, from  fearcbing  into  the  caufe  of  the  prefent  agitation 
of  the  public  mind,  which  has  taken  place  from  the  one 
end  of  this  extenuve  continent  to  the  other,  or  that  it  will 
deter  them  from  giving  their  opinion  thereon,  in  a  firm,  man- 
ly and  decent  manner  ? 

Or  do  you  believe,  my  little  difappointcd  fnippcr-fnapper,  that 
the  additional  yelping  of  a  half  a  dozen  more  fuch  whiffets 
us  thyfelf,  would  meet  the  fame  attention  and  refpecf,  as  the 
folid,  ferious  and  patriotic  advice  given  by  your  fellow-citizen, 
the  j  udge  ? 

Let  us  fee  then  what  he  fays  : — 

In  page  77,  he  obferves,  "  that  when  we  find  an  infringe 
ment  on  the  liberties  of  the  people,  admitted  in  the  adm'wijlr* 
lion,  ive  ought  not  to  c.^cufe  ourf elves  from  fearching  the  caufe: 

The  fame  worthy  patriot,  in  fhowing  the  advantages  whi 
arife  from  the  diflemination  of  ufeful  knowledge,  in  page  15 
makes  ufe  of  this  remarkable  expreflion  :  "   let  there  be  nc 
restraint  on   the   liberty  of   the   prefs,   no  check  upon  ru3i.K 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  129 

t.i  private  difcujfon,  but  what  is  impofed  by  the  manners, 
morals,  tafte,  and  good  fenfe  of  the  age." 

Thefe  two  are  the  exprefs  fentiments^of  thofe  who  oppofe 
the  treaty  ; — but,  poiTibiy,  my  little  ivtld  politician t  you  will 
jnlift  that  the  judge  meant  to  confine  u  public  difcuffion"  to 
the  countrf  only  ;  and  yet  I  fufpect,  that  it  would  bring  a 
blufh  even  into  thy  face,  to  be  called  on  for  a  good  argument 
to  fhow  caufe  why  the  citizens  of  great  mercantile  cities 
fhould  be  prevented  from  "  difculling  publicly,"  an  inftru- 
me  ;t,  chriftened  under  the  title  of  treaty  of  commerce  and 
navigation. 

Our  letter  writer  is  for  trufting  every  thing  to  the  conftitu- 
ted  authorities. 

The  worthy  judge  on  the  other  hand,  in  page  159,  makes 
an  obfervation  which  we  can  have  no  i-eaibn  to  doubt  is 
ftrongly  imprefled  on  the  president's  mind,  in  tlie  prefent  bu- 
fmefs — «  In  the  inaking  of  laws,  a  great  regard  muft  be  had 
to  the  circumitances,  manners,  and  fentiments  of  the  people, 
as  well  as  to  the  principles  of  the  con'titution — the  laws 
mult  be  the  beft  which  tlu'  people  can  bear." 

To  fuppofe,  therefore,  after  admitting  this  principle,  that 
the  prefident  would  ratify  the  prefent  treaty,  in  contradiction 
to  the  fentiments  of  fo  refpectable  and  (o  decided  a  majority 
of  the  people,  is  fuppofing  that  he  would  gratify  his  own  in- 
clination, at  the  hazard  of  commotions,  which  would  not 
only  be  extremely  dangerous  to  the  community,   but  would 

{>robably  be  attended  with  his  own  political  destruction.  And, 
iow  could  the  prefident  have  known,  that  the  people  were 
fo  univerfally  oppofed  to  this  treaty,  provided,  as  our  letter 
writer  feems  to  wifh,  they  had  been  perfectly  filent  on  the 
fubjech 

Was  this  treaty  to  be  ratified,  I  am  well  convinced  that  the 
citizens  of  Vermont  would  almoit  univerfally  oppofe  it,  from 
a  hearty  concurrence  with  their  worthy  judge,  in  the  follow- 
ing fentiment,  for  thev  cannot  be  ignorant,  that  this  treaty  is 
in  direct  oppofition  to  the  exprefled  will  of  the  h'oufe  of  repre- 
sentatives", who  wifhed  to  obtain  juftice  from  Great-Britain, 
not  by  the  fawning  flattery  and  cringing  fubmiffion  of  a  grovel- 
ing, proftituted  mind,  but  by  that  calm,  deliberate,  but  Item 
firmnefs,  in  fupport  of  our  natural  rights,  necefiary  for  main- 
taining that  refpect  and  attention  which  our  licuation,  our 
growing  greatnefs,  and  the  extenfive  advantage-  of  our  trade 
and  commerce  gave  us  a  right  to  claim  from  the  nations  of  the 
world.  Was,  then,  the  prefident  to  give  his  fan&ion  to  this 
treaty,-  we  fliould  have  the  fenate  in  favour  of,  and  the  hoi:re 


130  Reflections  on 

6f  rcprcfentatlves,   our  beji  guardians,  oppofed   to,   the   hi 
mcnc,  which  (if  it  i^  not  uncpnftitutional)  would  become  thefu- 
hreme  law  oj  the  land% 

The  citizens  oj  Vermont,  in  that  cafe,  would  draw  many 
of  their  arguments  from  the  pure  republican  fountain  v  Inch 
thejudgc  has  laid  open  to  them,, in  page  140,  where  he  fays, 
"  Public  difcufV.on,  and  mature  deliberation,  in  the  making  of 

laws,  are    indifpenfibly  necefl'ary. The  fen.tte  and  houfe 

Df  reprefentatives  fhould  have  equal  powers.  No  law  Jhould 
without  the  concurrent*  ofboih. 
Are  we  to  fuppofe,  then,  that  the  prefulent  will  join  the  fe- 
nate  in  fancliohthg  a  kw,  fuppofing  it  even  conftiuitional, 
which  he  knows  to  be  repugnant  to  the  wilhes  of  the  houfe 
of  reprefct::.  :s,  ajnd  nine-tenths  of  the  people  ?  Curfed  be 
he  who  entertains  fuch  an  opinion  of  him.  Such  an  act  would 
not  be  an  error,  it  would  be  a  crim?. 

1  be  poffibly  afked — Should  the   prefidont 

th'  ik  himfelf  jufiifiable  in  ratifying  the  treaty,  ought  not  the 
v  eft  contented,  and  view  it  as  the  fuprcme  law  of  the 

Jan  ■  ?   1  hefitate  not  to  anfwer,  They  ought  not. 

It  will  th  leir  duty  to  convoke  town-meetings,  anjl 

petition  their  immediate  reprefentatives  in  congrefs  to  n 
e  f  that  houfe  have  not  been  grol  ; 

d  en  ?  ^Vhethcr,  in  certain  parts  of  that  tr<  it ,  :: 
.  e  not  exceeded  their  conftitutional  powers  ? 
For  I  pcrfe£Hy  agree  with  the  learned  judge,  whom  I  have 
fg  1  [ten  quptedj  in  his  opinion,  page  1  i~t,  iC  That  the  govern- 
fnent,that  is,  tbofe  organized  bodies  who  are    entrufled  with 
government,  are  bound  by  the  conftitution,  but  have 
no  p  wer  in  themfelves,  to  male,  alter  or  a  ntroul  auy  cf  its  laws" 
rs  to  me  vevy  clear,  thai   the  power  granted  to 
the  prcfident,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  confentof  two-thirds 
of  the    fenatfc  prefent,  to   make  treaties,   could   never,   by  the 
framcrs  of  the  conftitution,  have   been  intended  to  controul 
ihcfe  important  and  extenfive  rights,  entrufted  to  congrefs  at 
,    it)  two   precedent    claufes  of  that  fame  conftitution, 
viz.    "  The  powers  of  regulating  commerce  with  foreign  na- 
!    "of  defining   and    punilhing   piracies,"   which 
ire  granted  in  the  mod  exprefs  terms,   and  not,  there- 
1  yield  to  mere  implication,  efpecially  when  the  admif- 
fiorj  of  that  implication  would  be  contradictory  to  the  genius 
t  f  the  whole  conftitution. 

,nle  to  fuppofe,  that  it  was   intended   to   authorize 
.    of  the  fenate,  with  the  prefident,  legally  to  re- 


Ma.  Ja\'.-.  Treaty.  r^t 

gulate  the  commerce  of  fuch  an  extenfive  mercantile  counts 
as  this,  and  that  theirregulatidn  was  to  be  binding  0:1  the  pec'- 
pie,  without  a  poffibility  ofconilitutional  redfefs,  however  dis- 
agreeable it  might  be  to  them,  to  the  majority  of  the  fenate, 
and  to  the  whole  houfe  oF  representatives  r  And  yet  thismighi 
happen,  if  the  power  of  [flaking  treaties  embraces  arj.1  the  ob- 
jects our  prefent  treaty  makers  wilt;.  For  the  po.  er  is  granted 
to  the  president,  and  two-thirds  of  the  fenatprs  prejent.  As  the 
fenate  cpnfifts  of  only  thirty  men:  I  ,is  ic  is  provided  by 

the  conftitutioh,  that  a  majority  of  therri  Khali  form  a  quorum, 
it  is  in  the  power  of  fixteen  members  to  conclude  a  treatv  -, 
and  as  eleven  members  make  more  than  tvo-thirds  of  tb.ofe 
fixteen,  they,  with  the  prefiderit,  would  Fully  be  empdwereflj 
by  the  cohftitutton,  to  have  formed  the  pre  fen  t  pending  treaty, 
momentous  as  it  is,  in  contradiction  to  the  willies,  irtforitotlM 
declared,  though  in  the  moll  '.erms,  of  nineteen  fac- 

tors, the  whole  houfe  of  representatives,  and  the  whole  of  die 
people. 

I  again  afk,  is  it  poffiblc  our  conftitutien  could  have  intend- 
ed to  clothe  any  twelve  men  with  Inch  immenfc,  fuch  uncon-» 
troulable,  fuch  irrevocable  powers  ? 

But  I  hear  fome  people  fay — Should  the  prcfident  ratify  thi* 
treaty,  and  fhould  the  houfe  of  representatives,  regard lefs  of 
the  petition  of  the  people,  permit  it  to  roll;  o\\  itsprefent  foot- 
ing, unnoticed  by  them,  what  are  the  people  to  do  in  that 
cafe  ? 

It  muft  be  acknowledged,  that,  in  fuch  a  cafe,  we  mould  be 
placed,  not  onlv  in  a  difficult,  but  a  very  difmal  fituation  :  It 
fwould  be  the  crifis  for  determining,  whether  the  term, 
tfthe people,  was,  like  the  children's  rattle,  ufed  merely  to  Keep 
them  from  murmuring  and  complaining;  or  whether,  in  this 
land  of  liberty,  it  had  an  abfolute  and  real  exiftenco,  calcula- 
ted for  much  more  important  purpofes. 

But  it  is  improper  even  to  fuppofe,  what  there  is  fo  little 
probability  of  ever  experiencing;  for  I  again  repeat,  that  the 
prefulent  never  will  give  his  fanclion  to  an  irrevocable  act, 
which  he  has  the  moit  convincing  proofs  of  the  great  body  of 
his  fellow  citizens  viewing  with  hatred,  horror,  and  contempt. 

I  fhall  conclude  with  calling  heaven  to  witnefs,  that  no  mail 
more  fervently  wifhes  than  I  do,  to  fee  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  unanimous  in  their  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the 
land,  as  long  as  thofe  laws  are  founded  on  the  immutable  prill* 
eipics  of  jultice,  good  faith,  and  national  honor. 


i  12 


American  Appeals. 

Kthej  I  ■  ont  cafe  of  the  Brigantine  Betfey,  \V.  K. 

mq/hr,  ivi  s  heard,  and  determined  :n  London ^  by  the  lords 
twenty-fifth  J"'),  179$« 

FROM  the  (hip's  papers  and  depositions  of  the  captain  and 
crew,  produced  in  evidence  on  this  caufe,  it  appears  that 
tlic  brigantine  Bet  fey,  belonging  wholly  to  mr.  George  Patter- 
fon,  of  Baltimore,  cleared  out  from  that  port  on  the  nineteenth 
December,  1793,  for  the  ifland  of  St.  Bartholomew's  and  a 
market.  That  inqueft  of  a  market  fhe  went  directly  to  Guadaloupe, 
where  (lie  arrived  on  the  eighth  of  January  following.  Here 
fhe  discharged  her  cargo  of  provifions,  and  took  in  one;  ol  Weft- 
India  produce.  With  this  c.irgo  fhe  was  proceeding  to  Balti- 
more, when  fhe  was  met,  and  captured  by  the  piiv  tver  floop 
of  war,  Agenoria,  Willis  Morgan,  commander,  and  taken  in- 
to Bermuda. 

Her  cargo  confined  of  fugar,  coffee,  and  other  goods,  be- 
longing, in  certain  fpecified  proportions,  to  the  captain  William' 
Furlong,  and  to  meiirs.  George  and  William  Patterfon. 

On  the  fourth  of  April,  1794,  proceedings  on  behalf  of  the 
captors  were  commenced.  On  the  twenty-third  of  April  fol- 
lowing, the  veffel  Was  claimed  by  captain  Furlong,  on  behalf 
of  mr.  George  Patterfon,  and  the  cargo  on  behalf  of  himfcify 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  of  meflrs.  George  and 
William  Patterfon,  both  alfo  lawful  citizens  of  the  United 
s,  and  who  had  been  for  many  years  before  refident  in 
Baltimore,  in  the  ftate  of  Maryland,  where  their  families  and 
houfe*  of  trade  were.  Mr.  George  Patterfon  has  been  alleg- 
ed to  be  a  native  of  Ireland — there  is  fome  doubt  as  to  this 
-  it  is  not  contended,  however,  hut  that  he  was  actually  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  It  appears  thathewentover  to  Gua- 
deloupe lor  a  fpecial  purpofe,  as  the  agent  of  Ids  brother,  and 
jk  t  with  the  view  of  refiding  there — on  the  contrary,  that  he 
prcpofed  returning  without  delay  to  Baltimore,  as  his  place  of 
nee. 

On  the  twenty-firfr.  of  May,  1794,  the  caufe  was  brought  on 
for  a  hearing,  before  John  Green,  efq.  judge  of  the  vice  ad- 
miralty court  of  Bermuda;  and  on  the  twenty-third  of  faid 
month,  the  veflel  with  her  "  boat,  tackle,  apparel  and  furni- 
ture, and  all  and  fingular  her  cargo  and  lading,  were  adjudged 
and  condemned  as  lawful  prize  to  the  captors  by  the  faid  judge: 


American  Appeals.  133 

&fid  the  claimant,  captain  Furlong,   ordered  and  directed  to 
pay  the  taxed  cofls  of  fuit." 

The  true  ground  of  judge  Green's  decree  appears  to  have 
been,  according  to  his  own  words,  becnufe  "  fhe  had  come  im- 
mediately from  a  French  port,  declared  by  authority  to  have 
been  blockaded  by  his  Britannic  majefty's  fleets  and  armies." 
It  feems  the  "  authority"  that  "declared"  die  French  iflands 
in  a  it  ate  of  blockade,  was  admiral  fir  J.  Jervis  ;  and  the  evi- 
dence of  this  act  before  the  court  was  a  copy  of  a  letter  from 
this  officer,  to  Thomas  Griffith,  efq.  of  Barbadoes,  of  which 
the  following  is  an  exa£t  tranfcript : 

ft  Boyne,  in  Fort*- Royal  Bay,  ALirtinico,  l2th  Marcht  1794. 

S    I    R, 

THE  feveral  French  Weft-India  i (lands  are  to  be  confider- 
ed  as  under  blockade  from  the  arrival  of  the  armament  at 
Barbadoes,  the  fixth  of  January  :  therefore  all  neutral  veffels, 
trading  with  thefe  iflands  wiihin  that  period,  arc  clearly  in- 
tended to  come  within  the  king's  order  in  council,  dated  the 
fixth  November,  1793. 

I  am,  Sir, 

Your  humble  fervant, 

J.  J  ERVIS." 
Thomas  Griffith,  cfq. 

THE  veilel  and  cargo  condemned,  on  the  twenty-third  of 
April,  were  delivered  to  the  captors  by  order  of  the  judge,  at 
an  appraifement  of  four  thoufand  fix  hundred  and  ninety-eight 
pounds,  fix  (hillings  and  feven-pence,  Bermuda  currency  ; 
which  is  itated  to  have  been  far  below  the  actual  value  of  the 
faid  vefTel  and  cargo. 

An  appeal  was  immediately  entered  from  this  fentence,  and 
the  claimants  prayed  the  restitution  of  their  property,  for  the 
following  reafon,  afhgned  by  their  counfel,  fir  William  and  fit 
John  Scott. 

"  Becaufe  the  fhip  and  cargo  were  clearly  and  indubitably 
the  property  of  American  fubjecls,  engaged  in  a  fair  and  licit 
trade." 

On  the  part  of  the  captors,  the  reafons  affigned  by  theii 
counfel,  mr.  Erikine  and  dr.  Nicholle,  for  fhe  affirmance  of  the 

Vol.  III.  T 


134  American  Appeals. 

i<: nt en cc  pafled  by  the  jut! ge  of  the  vice-admiralty    court,   It 
Bermuda,  were  as  follows  : 

«'  Ucciuic  the  proprietors  of  Chip  and  cargo  nre  natural  or 
Britifh  fubjfach -,  fupplviug  the  enemy  with  provisions. 

"  Becaufc  the  vciicl,  under  a  pretended  delFmatioYi  : 
neutral  port,  had  gone  direct !v  to  an  enemy'-,  port,  then  in  a 
itate  of  blockade,  and  was  r  n;-ning  from  thence  at  the  time  of 
the  capture,  with  a  Cargo  the  produce  of  fuch  blockaded  pert, 
width  ihe  had  taken  in  barter  for  the  cargo  of  provifions  fhe 
liad  carried  thither. 

u  Becaufe  the  fole  owner  of  the  (hip  and  cargo,  was  at  the 
time  of  the  capture,  an  inhabitant  of  the  enemy's  territory." 

On  Saturdav,  the  twenty-fifth  of  July  laft,  the  lords  com- 
miihoners  of  appeals,  heard  counfel  in  behalf  of  the  appellant 
and  refpondent. 

Sir  William  Scott,  on  the  part  of  the  claimant  and  appel- 
lant, Hated,  that  American  (Lips  in  the  time  of  peace,  • 
the  conitant  practice  of,  carrving  ilour  and  provifions  to  the 
French  Wcil-Jndia  iflandfr.  It  is  true,  that  an  order  of  council 
was  made  on  the  fixthoi  November,  1793,  and  an  inltruction 
an  it,  directing  nil  (hips  carrying  fupplies  to,  or  bringing  pvc- 
duce  from  the  French  Weft-India  iflands,  to  be  brought  in  for 
adjudication.  But  this  order  was  never  considered  to  extend  to 
a  condemnation,  and  it  was  revoked,  ami  another  inir.ruc.ticn 
iflued  on  the  eighth  of  January,  1794. 

Sir  William  Scott  here  referred  to  the  cafes  of  the  Fair  La- 
dy, the  Hetty,  the  Liberty,  and  the  Effex,  as  tending  to  eita- 
blifh  the  free  trade  of  the  Americans  to  the  French  Weil-In- 
dia iflands. 

Lord  Mansfield  exprefi'cd  Ins  doubts  as  to  this   broad  1 
tion  of  fir  William  Scott.   And 

Sir  W.  "Wynne  called  the  attention  of  the  board,  to  the  pro- 
clamation made  by  general  Rochambeau,  the  governor  of 
Martinique,  that  he  ihould,  under  the  circumitances  of  the 
iiland,  permit  the  importation  of  provifions  for  a  limited  time, 
but   otherwiic  woukl  adhere  to  the  French  colonial  laws. 

Mr.  Erlkine,  the  refpondent's  counfed,  agreed  to  argue  the 
<\\(-c  on  its  particular  circumitances. 

Sir  W.  Scott  in  continuation  contended,  that  as  to  the 
blockade,  the  Britifh  arms  had  not  inverted  the  iiland,  in  a 
way  to  thow  their  intention  to  make  it  the  primary  object  of 
their  attack,  at  the  time  of  the  capture  of  this  veilel. 

Sir  John  Jcrvi;,';  letter,  introduced  into  the  caufe,  furniflies 
10  fuiheirnt  fnggeftibn  to  induce  the  court  to  concede  the  af» 
'  blockade  to  be  well  founded. 


Amf.RicAs  Appeals. 

As  to  mr.  George  Patterfon,  the  owner  of  ilrt1  flup,  and  6i 
ft  moiety  of  the  cargo,  it  is  contended  that  he  is  a  native  of  Ire- 
land, and  ihe  doctrine  of  inalienable  allegiance,  as  it  formerly 
itood,  is  fet  up  as  a  bar  to  his  claim. 

The  independence  of  the  American  ftates  has  done  a'way 
that  doctrine,  as  to  all  perfons  fettled  there  at  the  time  offuch 
independence;  and  the  great  number  of  perfons  who  have  emi- 
grated to  America  fince  the  independence,  will  require  a 
moll  ferious  confideration  before  the  doctrine  will  be  applied 
to  them. 

Lord  prcfident  Mansfield  afked  fir  William  Scott,  if  he 
meant  to  contend  that  an  Englishman  could  get  rid  of  his 
allegiance  by  going  to  America  more  than  he  could  by  going 
to  Ruffia,  or  any  other  country  in  Europe  ? 

Sir  William  Scott  declined  the  enquiry,  but  repeated  his 
afl'ertion  that  the  magnitude  of  the  queltion  from  the  number 
of  perfons  gone  to  America  from  this  country,  would  require 
the  moft  ferious  deliberation  of  this  board,  before  the  doctrine 
alluded  to,  was  enforced  to  their  prejudice. 

The  mailer  of  the  rolls  obferved,  that  the  queftion  would 
probably  require  fome  underftanding  between  the  two 
countries. 

Sir  William  Scott  proceeded;  he  remarked,  that  as  to  mr. 
George  Patterfon's  birth  and  refidence*  the  third  witnefs  con- 
tradicts the  other  two,  and  fays,  lie  believes  mr.  Patterfon  was 
born  in  America  •,  fo  that  the  fact  is  not  proved  ;  and  as  to  his 
rchdence,  he  appears  to  have  gone  to  Guadaloupe  on  the  pre- 
feilt  occafion  only,  and  to  have  had  no  refidence  there  ;  and 
ns  to  the  clearing  out  for  St.  Bartholomew,  upon  which  much 
ilrefs  is  laid,  the  fact  is,  the  (hip  was  cleared  out  for  that 
ifland,  (which  is  Daniih)  and  for  a  market. 

Mr.  Erlkine  in  reply,  declared  he  was  more  convince  1  than 
ever  that  he  was  founded  in  alking  for  confirmation  of  the  fen- 
tence  of  condemnation,  as  it  is  evident  that  the  urgent  want 
of  provitions  was  the  fole  inducement  to  let  the  drip  take  back 
the  cargo  of  (agar  and  codec,  without  which  fhe  could  only 
have  taken  melafies. 

He  contended  that  the  voyage  may  flrictly  be  confidered  as 
inafked,  the  ifland  of  St.  Bartholomew  being  a  kind  of  empo- 
rium, and  the  words  "  for  a  market,"  a  mere  cover  \  and  as  to 
the  feizure  of  the  cargo  by  the  French,  it  is  evident  that  the 
owner  was  fo  well  reconciled  as  to  talk  of  fending  a  further 
cargo.  He  did  not  alk  for  condemnation  on  the  letter  of  fir 
John  Jervisj  lie  admitted  the  afl'ertion  o\'  lir  William  Scott,  as 


136  Observations  on 

to  its  want  of  logical  accuracy.  Self-prcfervation,  however,  was 
eflential,  and  as  much  a  principle  with  nations  as  with  indivi«- 
duals,  and  the  political  cxiflence  of  this  country  juflified  his- 
expectation  of  condemnation. 

Martinique  was  then  reduced;  and  mr.  Patterfon  muft  have 
known  it,  and  been  well  a  flu  red  that  Guadaloupe  was  an  im- 
mediate object  of  the  Britilh  arms. 

America,  he  contended,  was  entitled  to  no  more  and  nolefs 
than  other  nations;  and  he  had  no  doubt  but  that  if  mr.  Pat- 
terfon fhould,  on  further  enquiry  (if  it  mould  be  thought  ne- 
ceflary  to  make  it)  appear  to  be  a  Britifh  fubject  by  birth,  his 
property  would  be  liable  to  condemnation. 

The  counfel  having  clofed  their  arguments,  the  lords,  viz. 
the  earl  of  Mansfield,  lord  prefident  of  the  council ;  fir  R.  P. 
Arden,  knight,  mafler  of  the  rolls;  fir  W.  Wynne,  knight  \ 
Silvefter  Douglas,  efq.  and  Charles  Grenville,  efq.  took  the 
fame  into  coniideration,  and  made  and  declared  their  decree 
in  the  following  words  : 

"  The  lords  having  heard  the  proofs  read,  and  advocates  and 
pro6tors  on  both  fides,  under  all  the  fpecial  circumftances  of 
the  cafe,  by  their  interlocutory  decree,  pronounced  againft  the 
appeal,  affirmed  the  fentence  appealed  from,  and  remitted  the 
caufe." 

(Signed)  ARDEN, 

Regifler  of  his  majejlys  high  court  of appeals  for  prizes .** 


From  the  above  ftatement  and  decifion,  it  appears  that  the 
profpect  of  an  indemnification  by  appeal,  is  delufive.  The  cir- 
cumflances  attending  this  capture,  are  as  favourable  as  any 
that  can  be  brought  before  "  his  ma  jelly's  high  court  of  ap- 
peal for  prizes."  To  look  for  indemnification  from  this  quarter, 
is  nothing  more  nor  let's,  than  expofing  ourfelves  to  have  mi 
fult  added  to  sutrage. 

At  this  early  period  of  the  bufinefs,  we  find  the  operation 
of  the  treaty.  The  property  of  the  American  merchant  is 
become  the  mere  fport  of  the  lords  of  the  admiralty.  If  this 
is  the  effect  in  this  inftance  even  before  the  complete  ratifi- 
cation of  the  treaty,  what  may  we  not  expect  when  it  becomes 
in  full  force  ?  Does  this  decifion  exprefs  the  temper  and  feel- 
ings of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  which  mr.  Jay  was 
exprefsly  commiffioned  to  reprefent  ?  Are  thofe  captures  the 
amount  of  claims   to  be  fet  off  againft  the  (i  legal  in 


Mk.    Jj.w'^    I*REATT.  137 

Stents"  of  the  Britifh?  If  they  are,  what  balance  will  bo  o-t 
the  fide  of  the  Americans  ?  Not  a  JhiUtng — but  the  amount 
of  millions  will  become  a  clear  debt  againit  the  United  States. 
Thus,  by  mr.  Jay's  treaty,  we  have  fubmitted  our  claims  to 
the  decifion  of  the  lords  of  the  admiralty,  who,  no  doubt, 
will  decide  in  every  cafe  as  they  have  in  the  preceding  ;  while. 
the  claims  of  the  Britifh  are  admitted  to  be  fettled  by  com- 
miffioners,  who,  no  doubt,  will  draw  an  immenfe  balance  in 
favor  of  the  Englifh.  Who  then  is  to  difcharge  this  debt  ?  The 
American  citizens.  The  merchant  who  has  already  loft  his 
property  mult  be  further  taxed  to  pay  Britifh  fubjects.  The 
farmer  who  lias  had  nothing  to  do  in  contracting  it,  muft  be 
called  on  by  a  land  tax.  The  fact  is,  we  had  better  have 
waved  our  claims  for  indemnification,  and  quietly,  paffively, 
and  fubmiffively,  like  good  fubjeBs  of  Britain,  have  acouiefced 
in  their  depredations.  By  mr.  Jay's  negotiation,  we  not  only 
lofe  our  property  by  Bermudian  piracy,  but  have  brought  on 
ourfclvcs  Britifh  claims — which  were  never  contemplated  by 
the  miniftry,  till  they  found  that  mr.  Jay  was  difpofed  to  ad- 
mit them. 

The  infults  offered  to  ibis  country,  are  without  parallel.  We 
mult  be  held  in  abhorrence  by  all  European  nations,  and  def- 
pifed  for  our  pufillanimity  even  by  the  Britifh  themfclves.  Our 
friends  in  England  pity  us,  and  our  enemies  laugh  at  us.  The 
former  pity  us,  that  we  have  not  maintained  our  national  cha- 
racter, by  thofe  weapons  of  commerce  and  fequeflrationy  which 
we  to  fully  poffefs,  and  which  would  have  made  Britain  more 
cautious  in  her  conduct  towards  us.  The  latter  laugh  at  us„ 
that:  we  have  fo  foon  become  the  dupes  of  the  Britifh  nation 
by  negociation.  God  only  knows  what  will  be  the  event;  bur 
this  is  certain,  that  the  ftrides  of  Britain  to  again  poffefs  them- 
felves  of  this  country,  are  too  alarming  not  to  awaken  the  fears 
of  every  patriot.  Their  connections  in  America,  the  refidents 
already  among  us,  and  thofe  we  may  expect:  within  a  few 
years,  it  is  to  be  feared  will  become  too  ftrong  a  phalanx  to  be 
baffled  by  the  exertions  of  the  honeji  yeomanry  oi  the  i 
States.  1  lie  freedom,  fovereignty  and  independence  of  our 
country  are  proitrated  to  Britain.  Not  a  trai  mains, 

and  the  fourth  of  July  (unlefs  prevented  by  the  vigilance  of 
the  citizens)  will  be  obliterated  as  a  day  of  feftival,  in  Ame- 
rica. [Baltimore  Telegraphe.~\ 


I     i.;8    ] 


Objcrrc aliens  c?i  the  'fourteenth  article    nf 
;//;*.  Jafs  Treaty. 


BY  the  fourteenth  article  of  the  treaty  concluded  between 
our  government  ami  that  of  Great-Britain,  the  fubjcrU 
pftke  king  of  Greatr Britain  may  be  brought  to  America  when 
they  arc  fucking  babies,  and  remain  in  the  country  till  they  are 
grey-headed,  and  (till  bcBritifh  fubje&s;  as  it  is  being  born 
in  the  king's  dominions,  which  constitutes  them  Britith  fub- 
jccls,  and  that  they  cannot  alienate  their  allegiance,  is  a  point 
fully  eltablifhed  in  the  twenty-firft  article  of  the  treaty,  where 
it  is  agreed,  "  That  if  any  fubject  or  citizen  of  the  faid  parties 
refpedlively,  fliall  accept  any  com  mi  (Con,  or  letters  of  marque, 
fur  arming  any  veflel  to  act  as  a  privateer  againft  the  other 
party,  and  be  taken  by  the  other  party,  it  is  hereby  declar- 
ed to  be  lawful  for  the  faid  party,  to  treat  and  punifh  the 
fviid  lubjccTt,  or  citizen,  having  fuch  commiflion,  or  letters 
pf  marque,  as  n  pirate."  By  the  principle  lately  eftablilh- 
ed,  thofe  who  are  born  in  the  dominions  of  the  king  of 
Great-Britain,  and  thofe. bom  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  cannot  alienate  their  allegiance.  For  if  a  man  born 
in  the  United  States,  may  go  to  France,  alienate  his  alle- 
giance, become  a  French  citizen,  engage  in  their  navy,  and  be 
Taken  by  the  Engliih,  by  what  law  of  nature  or  nations,  doe* 
our  executive  pronounce  it  lawful  to  treat  and  pnni/h  a  French 
citizen  as  n  pirate  ?  If  it  be  acknowledged,  that  the  intention  of 
fhe  trainers  of  the  treaty,  was  to  prevent  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  from  entering  into  the  fervice  of  foreigners*, 
would  it  not  have  been  fufneient  to  have  declared  them  aliens, 
w,  they  expatriated  thcmfelvcs  by  their  own  voluntary  aclr  But 
if  they  are  (till  to  be  deemed  American  citizens,  it  only  remains 
to  enquire  by  what  conjlitutional  or  legal  authority  did  the  au- 
thors of  the,  late  treaty,  prefume  to  pafs  fentence  upon,  and 
give  up  an  American  citizen  to  foreigners,  to  iulter  an  ignomi- 
nious death  by  their  hands ;  when  it  is  declared,  in  the  leventh 
article  of  the  amendments  to  -the  federal  conflitution,  "That 
r.operfon  fliall  be  held,  to  anfwer  for  a  capita',  or  other  wife  in- 
famous ci  ime,  unlefs  on  a  prefentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand 
jury,  except  in  rales  arifing  in  the  land  and  naval  forces,  or  in 
the  rriiliiia,  wlien  in  actual  fervice,  in  time  of  war  or  publii 
danger.  Nor  fliall  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  cafe  to  be  a 


;j 


Mr.  Jay's  Treaty.  139 

ktncfs  again  ft  hunfelf,  nor  be  derived of  life,  //.V,-/)1  arproptttfi 
without  dite  procefs  oi  Amu,  &c.'' 

Article  eighth;  "  In  ill  criminal prtj/l'cittionfi  *h*  aecufed  (hsAi 
enjoy  Che  right  to  a  fpeedy  and  public  trial,  by  an  '::;::  . 
of  the  /late  ami  diltrici  wherein  the  crime  (hill  have  been  com- 
mitted, which  '.lilh-ioi  (hall have  been  previouliv  a/certaincd  by 
law-,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  eaui'e  or'  the  accu-. 
lation  i  to  be  confronted  with  thewitnenea  agaihlt  him;  tn 
have  compulfcry  procef, for  obtaining  witiieiles  in  his  favor*; 
and  to  h.ive  the  atliUance  of  council  for  h 

Tlicfe  are  clear  and  pointed  ttipulations,  in  favour  of  the 
conitituiion.d  privileges  at  every  American  citizen,  of  which 
thev  I  ir.uot  be  diverted,  even  bv  .m  act  of  congrefc,  who  alone 
have  the  cxclulive  authority  to  defitit  and  punijh  piracies  and/.'. 
/;.'/.,\r  committed  on  the  high  leas,  and  odences  againlt  the: 
laws  of  tuitions  .•  fee  the  eighth  fedio-n  of  the  firft;  article  of  the 
Conltitution. 

This  being  a  fair  'date  of  facts,  it  only  remains  to  enquire, 
lurj},  Whether  congrefs  have  ever  prefumed  to  make  a  lino  to 
Wgtence  an  American  citizen  to  fuller  death  as  a  piratt  for  at- 
tempting to  alienate  his  allegiance  by  entering  into  the  fervicc 
If  another  nation,  and  acling  againlt  any  other  foreign  na- 
tion, being  enemies  ot  the  nation  of  winch  he  became  a  mem- 
ber ?  Secondly  i  If  congrefs  have  never  made  fuch  a.  are,  and 
it  be  granted  that  thole  which  affect,  the  life  of  a  citizen,  arc 
the  molt  important  ami  foleinn  parts  of  Jcgiilatioil — ean.it  be 
rationally  fuppofed,  that  the  fenate  and  executive  of  tlie 
United  States,  can  have  a  right  to  lcgiflate,  hi  this  rnoft  im- 
portant cafe, p'aninwmt \Q  tiie  whole  legiilative  body?  'T'.vrd/;, 
Has  it  ever  been  conftituted  felony,  by  the  !d\>  of  mtims,  for 
a  fabjicl  or  citizen,  to  emigrate  in  time  of  peace,  to  another 
countrv,  lwear  allegiance  to  Inch  (rate,  and  become  a  fu 
or  citizen,  provided,  the  perfon  fa  emigrating,  never  acts  inU 
rnicallv  agiintt  his  parent  llatc  ?  fourthly,  When  tiie  dacham 
of  inalienable  allegiance,  as  agreed  upon  in  the  late  tr 
ccme.  to  be  fairly  eftablilhed,  and  acted  upon,  will  not  many 
poufands  who  migrated  to  the  United  States  from  Great-J3riT 
tin  iaiee  our  treaty  oi  peace,  who  hive  been  naturalized,  and 
taken  the  oath  of  allegiance,  be  distrar.chifed?  Fpr  if  their  fjril 
allegiance  be  indifloluble,  the  lalt  of  courfe  mult  be  nugatory; 
as  they  cannot  be  bona  fid:  Hritifh  lubjects,  and  American  ci- 
ij/ens  at  tlie  fame  time.  So  that  meffrs.  George  and  William 
btterfon,  of  Baltimore,  in  Maryland,  may  yet  fall  into  the 
l.'2ud;-  of  the  incenfed  Britons,  and  be  tried,  convicled,  and  e\- 


14-0 


Camilixs  re;  i  rati 


ecuted  for  high  trei  that  they,  the  faid  George  and 

'William, beitig both  Britifh  fubjecrs  by  birth,  and  not  having 
the  fear  of  God  before  their  eves,  had  attempted  to  alienate 
ihciraliegiance,  by  emigrating  to  Maryland,  in  the  United  Slates 
oF  America,  ami  tl  en  and  there,  did  telonioufly,  with  malice. 
aforethou  bet  the  enemies  of  their  moil  gracious 

law  ful  fovcreign,  bv  furniihing  them  with  provifions,  notwith- 
standing all  the  Trench  Welt-India  iflands  were  under  fen- 
tence  of  fhrvation.  and  were  clofely  blockaded  by  a  procla- 
mation of  fir  John  Jtrvis,  for  more  than  two  months  before 
faid  proclamation  was  i;Tued,  and  while  he  was  yet  a  great  dif- 
rance  from  them  ;  fo  that  his  majesty's  Britifh  American  fub- 
jetts,  might  have  timely  notice  of  his  gracious  intention  to- 
waTds  the  inhabitants  of  the  French  Weft-India  iilands,  and 
not  involve  themfelves  in  the  crime  of  high  treafon,  by  feeding* 
thole  whom  his  molt  humane  and  gracious  majefty  intended 
to  ftarvc. 

A.  Z. 

iV.  B.  The  proclamation  was  iflued  on  the  eighth  of  March, 
and  the  farcical  paper  blockade,  commenced  cm  the  6th  of  Ja- 
nuary preceding. 

From  the  Argus. 

Camillas  refuted  by  Alexander  Hamilton. 

CAMILLUS. 

'<  TT  is  true,  as  fuggefted,  that  our  government  has  coll- 
ie ftantly  charged  as  breaches  of  the  treaty  by  Great-Britain, 
the  two  particulars  that  have  been  Hated  ;  but  it  is  believed  to 
be  not  true,  that  it  has  uniformly  charged  them  nsjirjl  breach- 
es of  the  treaty — individuals  may  have  entertained  this  idea — 
ihe  ft  ate  of  Virginia  feems  to  have  proceeded  upon  it,  in  fome 
public  atfts  ;  but,  as  far  as  it  is  recollected,  that  ground  ivas 
never  formally  or  explicitly  taken  by  the  government  of  the  Utii- 
ted  States,  till  in  the  abovetnentioned  letter  from  mr.  Jefferfon 
to  mr.  Hammond,  when  for  the  firft  time  an  attempt  was 
*o  vindicate  or  excufe  the  wh^le  conduct  of  this  coun- 


By  A.  Hamilton.  141 

%ry  in  regard  to  the  treaty  of  peace,  contrary,  I  will  venture 
to  fay,  to  the  general  fenfe  of  well  informed  men." 

ALEXANDER  HAMILTON. 
///   Congrefsy  Monday,  May  26,    1783. 
On  motion  of  tnr.  Hamilton,  feconded  by  tnr  Izard. 

"Whereas,  by  the  articles  agreed  upon  on  the  30th  of  No- 
vember laft,  by  and  between  the  commiilioners  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  of  America  for  making  peace,  and  commiilioners 
on  the  part  of  his  Britannic  majefty,  it  is  ftipulated,  that  his 
Britannic  majefty  ihall,  with  all  convenient  fpeecf,  and  with- 
out caufing  any  dellruc~lion,  or  carrying  away  any  negroes,  or 
other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants,  withdraw  all  lis 
armies,  garrifons  and  fleets,  from  the  faid  United  States,  and 
from  every  port,  place,  and  harbour  within  the  fame  : — and 
whereas,  a  confiderable  number  of  negroes  belonging  to  citizens 
of  thefe  dates  have  been  carried  off  therefrom,  contrary  to  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  faid  articles : 

Refolved,  that  the  copies  of  the  letters  between  the  com- 
mander in  chief,  fir  Guy  Carletort,  and  other  papers  on  this 
fubjec~r,  be  tranfmitted  to  the  minilters  plenipotentiary  of 
thefe  dates  for  negociating  peace  in  Europe  ;  and  that  they 
be  directed  to  remonltrate  thereon  to  the  court  of  Great- 
Britain,  and  take  proper  sneafures  for  obtaining  fuch  repara- 
tion, as  the  nature  of  the  cafe  will  admit. 

Ordered,  that  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  refolve  be  tranfmit- 
ted to  the  commander  in  chief  ;  and  that  he  be  directed  to 
continue  his  remondrances  to  fir  Guy  Carleton,  refpecting  the 
permitting  negroes  belonging  to  the  citizens  of  thefe  dates 
to  leave  New- York,  and  to  infid  on  the  difcontinuance  of 
that  mtafure. 


Remarks  on  the  above. 

If,  then,  congrefs,  as  early  as  May  1783,  complained  of 
this  infraction,  they  mud  have  regarded  it  as  the/r/?  breach  ; 
for  Great-Britain  had  not  yet  had  time  to  hear  of  what  was 
bafllng  in  this  country  on  the  fubjecl:  of  the  trcsty,  much  lets 

Vql.  HI.  V 


141  Camillas  refuted  - 

to  complain  of  any  violation  on  our  part.  It  will  be  recollec- 
ted, that  the  treaty  had  been  received  by  ccngref*  early  in 
the  preceding  month. 

By  this  refolve,  it  alfo  appears,  that  colonel  Hamilton 
thought  the  treaty  binding  from  the  fignature  of  the  provi- 
fional  articles  •,  but  Camillus  contends,  that  it  was  not  fo  un- 
til the  exchange  of  the  ratification  of  the  definitive  articles 
which  took  place  more  than  one  year  later. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  inftance  in  which  our  government 
formally  ahd  explicitly  tcck  this  ground,  although  one  would 
be  ltd  to  conclude  from  Camillus,  that  to  mr.  Jefierfon  alone 
belonged  the  credit  of  discovering  it. 

On  the  i  ith  April,  1783,  congrefs  agreed  to  a  proclama- 
tion, declaring  a  ceiiation  of  hoflilities  ;  and  only  four  days 
alter, 

Refolvcd,  that  the  commander  in  chief  be  inftruQed  to 
make  the  proper  arrangements  with  the  commander  in  chief 
of  the  Britifh  forces,  for  receiving  pofTeflion  of  the  pods  in 
the  United  States  occupied  by  the  troops  of  his  Britannic 
majelty,  and  for  obtaining  the  delivery  of  all  negroes  and  other 
property  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  United  States  in  pofftffion  of  tlie 
J  ritifhforceSi  or  any  fubjeEl  oj\  or  adherent  to  his  f aid  Britannie 
tnaje     • 

Again,  on  the  yth  Auguft,  1 78c*,  congrefs  refolvcd,  that 
the  iceretarv  for  foreign  affairs  caufe  to  be  made  out  icparate 
lilts  of  the  numbers,  names,  and  owners  of  the  negroes  be- 
longing to  the  citizens  of  each  ibte,  and  carried  away  by  the 
Bruiih,  in  contravention  of  the  treaty,  and  that  he  tranfmit  the 
laid  lifts  to  the  executives  of  the  ltates  to  which  they  refpec- 
tively  belong. 

Will  not  Camillus  have  the  candour,  after  thefe  concurring 
proofs,  to  retract  fo  much  of  his  affercion  as  is  oppofed  to  them  ? 
Such  conduct  is  the  only  amends  he  can  make  for  the  mifap- 
prehenfion  he  has  excited  on  a  fubje£t  which  may  ftill  prove 
of  great  importance  to  America,  the  negociations  between 
•her  and  Great-Britain  not  being  yet  finifhed. 

The  above  relolves,  and  particularly  the  firft,  prove  un- 
ecuivocally,  that  col.  H.  cannot  be  the  author  oi  Camillus, 
an  imputation  which  his  enemies  are  indefatigable  in  fixing 
on  him — No  man  who  knows  that  gentleman  can  believe, 
that  he  fhoiild  fo  foon  forget  an  adt  of  which  he  himfelf  was 
the  mover,  and  to  which,  as  a  public  character,  lie  muft  fre- 
quently have  recurred.  This  is  not  the  only  inftance  in  which 
the  opponents  of  the  treaty  have  attempted  to  afperfc  his 
character.  PH1LO-C1NNA. 


(     »43     ) 
ADDRESS 

Of  the  Citizens  of  Charlefioivn  to  the  Preftdctit. 

To     GEQRGE     WASHINGTON, 

P  reft  dent  of  the  United-States. 

Commowcalth  of  MafTachufetts. 
Charlejhivn  (near  BoftonJ  July  22,  1795. 
Sir, 

THE  treaty  now  pending  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  Great-Britain,  having  much  engaged  the 
Attention  of  this  part  of  the  country  j  the  inhabitants  of  this 
to  n  have  been  led  legally  to  convene  in  their  corporate  ca- 
pacity, agreeable  to  the  conftitution  of  the  commonwealth, 
for  the  purpofe  of  taking  the  fame  into  consideration — and 
have 

Voted,  That  this  town  do  difapprovc  of  the  treaty  now 
pcnling  between  the  United  States,  and  Great-Britain,  as  it 
has  been  read. 

Voted,  That  this  town  do  difapprove  of  the  treaty  as  modi- 
fied by  the  fenate  of  the  United  States. 

Voted,  That  the  Selectmen  be  requefted  to  tranfmit  the 
doings  of  this  meeting  to  the  prefident  of  the  United  States. 

In  compliance  with  the  laft  mentioned  vote,  we  have  the 
honor  to  tranfmit  faid  votes,  and  to  fubihit  them  to  your  con- 
sideration ;  fully  ]  rfuaded,  that  every  fentiment  of  your 
heart,  with  every  action  of  your  life,  are  directed  toward  the 
bublic  good.  Wc  arc,  J 

With  the  profoundeft  efleem  and  refp?c~i:,  &c.  ^ 

Signed  by  the  rjipectable  the  fele&men  of  Charlcftown.  "' 

m 

PRESIDENT'S     ANSWER. 

To  Richard  Devens,  David  Gordivin,  Jofeph  Adams,  RicMfdl 
Frrthinghkm\  John  Carter ,  and  Eliphalet  Neve//,  Se/eflfoeH 
of  Char/tfloivn. 

Gfntlemen, 

I  Received  your  letter  of  the  22d  of  July,  containing  the 
votes  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  of  Charleftown,  who 
were  convened  to  take  into  confideration  the  treaty  pending 
between  the  United  States  and  Great-Britain. 

My  aflent  to  the  treaty,  as  advifed  and  confented  to  by  bhe 


t44  PRGCEEDINS  OF    THE    &Ci 

fenate,  and  the  principles  which  governed  my  determination^ 
are  now  publicly  known.  In  this,  as  in  every  other  exercife  of 
the  powers  committed  to  me  by  the  conftitution,  I  have  aimed 
to  promote  the  public  good,  and  to  merit  thofe  fentimentg 
of  perfonal  confidence  which  are  exprefled  in  your  commu- 
nication. 

With  due  refpect, 

I  am,  gentlemen,  your  obedient, 

G.     WASHINGTON. 
United  States,  Avgujl  31ft,  1795. 

PROCEEDINGS 

Of  the  Citizens  of  Frederic  Conniy,  Virginia* 

At  a  numerous  and  refpettable  meeting  of  the  citizens  of 
Frederic  county,  held  agreeably  to  notice  given  in  the  public 
papers,  at  the  court-houfe  of  faid  county,  on  Tuefday,  the 
1  ft  of  December,   1795. 

General  Daniel  Morgan  being  appointed  chairman,  and 
having  taken  his  feat,  th«  citizens  preicnt,  with  one  diflenting 
voice  only,  after  mature  deliberation*  and  hearing  the  fubjeel: 
fully  difcuffed  ;  came  to  the  following  refolutions,  to  wit: 

1  ft.  Refolved,  that  the  conduct  of  the  prefident  of  the: 
United  States,  in  ratifying,  agreeably  to  the  advice  of  twefc- 
thirds  of  the  fenate  01  the  United  States,  the  treaty  of  amity, 
commerce,  and  navigation,  between  the  United  States  of 
America  and  Great-Britain,  negociated  by  John  Jay,  efq.  is 
entitled  to,  and  meets  with,  the  entire  approbation  of  this 
meeting. 

2d.  Refolved,  that  Daniel  Morgan,  Charles  Minn  Thrnjlon, 
Robert  White,  jun.   Charles   Magill  and  Jofeph  Caldwell,  be 
appointed  a  CQmmittee,  for  the  purpofe  of  tranfmitting  to  the 
prefident  the  fentiments  and  proceedings  of  this  meeting. 
(Signed.) 

Daniel  Morgan,  Chairman* 


[No.  XL} 
THE 


American  Remembrancer ; 


O   R, 


AN  IMPARTIAL  COLLECTION 


O   F 


ESSAYS,    RESOLVES, 
SPEECHES,    Qfe 

RELATIVE,    OR    HAVING    AFFINITY,    TO    THE 

TREATY  with  GREAT  BRITAIN. 


VOLUME     III. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED    BY     HENRY    TUCKNISS, 
FOR    MATHEW    CAREY,    NO.     Il8,    MARKET-STREET, 

DECEMBER    28,    1795- 


CONTENTS. 

Page 
ATTIC  US,  No.  VIII.  -  -  147 


No.  IX.         -  -  -       150 


Camillus,  No.  XXVI.  -  -             -           153 

No.  XXVII.  -  -         -        -         162 

No.  XXVIII.         -  -  -170 

No.  XXIX.         -  -  -         1  So 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10. No.  XXXIII.         -  -  -         211 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^   ; 


■No.  XXX.         -  -  -  188 

-No.  XXXI.      --.  -         1 95 

-Afo.  XXXII.        -  -  204 


American  Remembrancer,  &c. 

ATTICU  S— No.  VIII. 

[continued  from  page  72.] 

To  the  Freemen  of  lie  United  States. 

Fellow  Citizens, 

IT  was  my  intention  when  I  began  thefe  letters,  to  confider 
the  treaty  in  all  its  relations  ;  but  as  the  merchants  and 
traders  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  chambers  of  commerce  of  New- 
York  and  Bofton  have  held  up  the  idea  of  unimportance  to  our 
commerce,  have  deemed  it  a  thing  unworthy  the  attention  of 
any  other  people  than  merchants,  and  not  worth  the  rifk  of 
difpleafing  Great  Britain,  I  will  not  differ  with  them,  more 
efpccially  as  the  prefident  has  given  them  an  exclufive  privilege 
to  think  on  this  fubjtct ;  but  I  will  proceed  to  examine  the 
conflitutional  and  political  features  of  this  monfler  of  '•  hcrrid 
mien,  that  to  be  hated  needs  but  to  be  feen."  Not  being  in  the  ha- 
bit of  weighing  my  rights  and  my  happinefs  in  a  gold  f coles,  I 
can  the  more  readily  difmifs  the  commercial  conlideratic:> 
the  treaty  ;  and  as  a  few  merchants  and  traders  have  infolently 
and  prefumptuoufly  monopolized  the  right  to  judge  of  things 
relating  to  commerce,  they  certainly  will  not  deny  others  the 
exclufive  privilege  of  deciding  upon  the  conflitutional  and  po- 
litical parts,  of  which  they  fecm  to  be  wholly  ignorant.  This 
is  a  quid  pro  quo,  and  has  more  reciprocity  in  it  than  the  wiftit 
and  moft  profound  of  the  addrefiers  can  point  out  in  the  treaty. 
The  unconititutional  origin  of  the  treaty,  has  been  already 
fhown  in  the  "letters  cf  Franklin,"  to  which  I  lake  the  liberty 
to  refer  you,  my  fellow  citizens,  while  I  proceed  to  fhow  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  inftrument  itfelf.  The  treaty  lias 
eftabliflied  a  rule  of  naturalization,  within  the  precincts  or  ju- 
rildiction  of  the  wefterh  polls,  by  which  Britilh  fubjects  can 
become  American  citizens  within  any  term  of  one  year.  The 
conftitution  exprefsly  declares,  that  cpngrefs  fhali  have  power 
'*  to  eflablifh  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  throughout  the 
United  States."  Here  then  the  prefident  and  fenate  have  not 
only  ufurped  the  power  of  congrefs,  to  eftablifli  a  rule  of  natu- 
ralization, but  they  have  been  guilty  of  a  two-fold  breach  of  the 
conftitution,  by  making  that  rule  not  "  uniform*'  During  the 
laft  feffion  of  the  federal  legiflature,  an  uniform  law  of  natural- 


148  Atticus — No.  VIII. 

ization  war,  pafled,  by  which  a  five  years  refidencc  is  made  ne^ 
ceflary  to  obtain  citizenfhip;  but  this  law  has  been  fuperfeded 
by  treaty  ;  am!  a  Britifh  fubjeck  may  become  an  American  citi- 
zen in  one  iveek  alter  the  furrendcr  of  the  pofts  !  The  molt  def- 
perate  "  Antifderalift"  could  not  have  aimed  a  more  deadly  blow 
at  the  conftitution  than  the  tre.uy  has  done;  and  if  rendering 
the  conftitution  a  nofe  *f  wax,  can  be  called  diforgamzation,  Ja~ 
cobinifm,  or  anarchy,  the  prefident  and  fenate  are  the  greateft 
diforganizers,  the  moft  furious  Jacobins,  and  moll  violent 
anarchifts,  in  the-  United  States.  If  a  compact,  which  ought 
to  be  held  facred,  and  which  ought  to  be  conftrued  and  exe- 
cuted ftriclly,  can  be  interpreted  to  mean  any  thing  that  floats 
in  the  mind,  or  flutters  in  the  heart  of  the  prefidenr,  the  fecu- 
rity  which  we  promifed  ourfelves  is  at  an  end,  and  we  are  lite- 
rally in  the  fituation  of  our  new  allies.  Great  Britain;  we  have 
a  conftitution  in  the  clouds. 

The  coriilitution  declares,  that  "  Congrcfs  fhall  have  power  to 
difpofe  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  ref peeling  the 
territory  or  ether  property  belonging  to  the  United  States,  or  of  any 
particular  fate."  By  the  treaty,  the  prefident  and  fenate,  in- 
ltead  of  "  congrcfs,"  have  made  rules  and  regulations  refpedling 
the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  have  prejudiced  their 
claims,  as  well  as  the  claims  of  individual  llates.  The  2d  arti- 
cle of  the  treaty  guarantees  to  "  all  fettlers  and  traders,  within 
the  precincts  or  jurifdiclion  of  the  pofs,  all  their  property  of  every 
kind."  Part  of  this  property  belongs  to  the  United  States,  and 
parr  to  individual  fates ;  and,  notwithftanding,  the  prefident  and 
fenate  have  made  rules  and  regulations  refpecling  it.  The  con- 
ftitution is  folemnly  prohibitory  upon  every  department  of  the 
government,  with  refpect  to  the  claims  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  individual  Hates,  when  it  declares,  that"  nothing  in  this 
conftitution  fall  be  fo  confrued  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  any  particular  fate  "  and  in  defiance  of  this 
folemn  prohibition,  this  article  was  formed  and  ratified  !  The 
treaty  of  peace  ftipulatcd,  that  the  pofts  fhould  be  furrendered 
■with  all  convenient  lpeed  ;  and  from  the  date  of  the  ratification 
of  that  treaty,  all  real  property,  not  actually  held  by  Britifh 
fubjects  there,  became  veiled  in  the  United  States,  and  of  in- 
dividual ftates  ;  now,  as  a  confiderable  part  of  the  territory 
Comprehended  in  the  precincts  or  jurifdiclion  of  the  pofts  was 
taken  poiTeffion  of  by  the  Britifh  fubjecls  fnce  the  treaty  of 
peace,  no  department  in  the  government  could  guarantee  fuch 
poiTeffion  ;  as  the  claims  of  the  United  States,  and  of  individu- 
al ftates,  became  prejudiced  thereby.  Admitting  a  right  to  make 


Attic  us — No.  VIII.  149 

rules  and  regulations  refpe£ling  the  territory  of  the  United 
Stares,  that  right  appertains  exclufively  to  congrefs. 

The  conftitution  declares  that  n  congrefs  fhall  have  power  to 
regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  feveral 
flates,  and  •with  the  Indian  tribes."  By  the  3d  article  of  the 
treaty  this  power  is  affumed  by  the  prefident  and  fenate;  for  it 
declares,  that  "  no  duty  of  entry  fhall  ever  be  levied  by  either 
party  on  peltries  brought  by  land  or  inland  navigation  into  the 
faid  territories  refpcctively,  nor  /ha//  the  Indians,  pajfing  or  te- 
pafftng  -with  their  own  proper  goods  and  effects,  of  whatever  nature, 
pay  for  the  fame  any  impofl  or  duty  whatever."  The  power  of 
congrefs  to  regulate  commerce  with  the  Indian  tribes,  is  thus 
deftroyed  by  a  fingle  coup  of  the  preiidential  and  fenatorial 
hands. 

By  the  conftitution  "  the  judical  power  of  the  United  States 
fhall  be  veiled  in  one  fupreme  court,  and  in  fuch  inferior  courts 
as  the  congrefs  may  from  time  to  time  ordain  and  eftablifh."  By 
the  6th  article   of  the  treaty,   a  judicial  power  is  given  to  five 
commiffioners,  two  of  which  are  to  be  appointed  by  Great  Bri- 
tain,  and  iV the  award  of  the  faid  commiffioners  is  to  be  final  and 
conclufive,  both  as  to  the  juflice  of  the  claim,  and  the  amount  of  the 
fuin  to  be  paid  to  the  creditor,  or  claimant."     Here  is  a  judicial 
power  given  by  the  prefident  and  fenate  to   five  commiffioners, 
two  of  whom  arc  to  be  fifreignerst  and  a  third  may  alfo  be  a  fo- 
reigner ;  and  thefe  commiffioners  are  to  have  a  final  decifion. 
upon  the  property  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.    To  con- 
grefs alone  is  given  the  eftablifhment  of  a  judicial  power;  but 
even  congrefs  would  hardly  adventure  fo  to  profane  the  confti- 
tution, as  to  eftablifh  a  mongrel  tribunal  of  foreigners  and  citi- 
zens.    The  prefulent  and  fenatet  in  the  name  of  the  United 
States,  undertake  "  to  canfe  the  fum  awarded  by  the  commiifi- 
oners  to  be  paid  in  fpecie  to  fuch  creditor  or  claimant  without 
deduction,  and  at  fuch   time  or  times,  and  at  fuch   place   or 
places  as  fhall  be  awarded  by  the  faid   commiffioners."     The 
conftitution  declares,   that  "  all  bills  for  raiftng  revenue  fhall  ori- 
ginate in  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives,"   and   that    "  no  money  fhall 
be  drawn  from  the  treafury,   but   in  confeauence    of  appropriations 
made  by  law."    The  fituation  in  which  the  prefident  and  fenate 
have  placed  the  United  btates  by  this  article,    give   them   the 
power  of  raifing  revenue,  and  of  making  appropriations  of  mo- 
ney according  to  their  whim;  for  as  a  treaty  is  a  folemn  ftipu- 
lation  between    Rati  m    and    nation,    every    infraction    of   tint 
treaty  is  a  ground  cf  war.     If  then  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives 
refufes  to  originate   a  revenue  to  carry   this  ftipulation  m  the 
treatv,  into  effect,  it  may  be  confidcred  as  an  infraction  of  the 
Vol.  III.  Y 


150  Atticus — No.  IX. 

fca^v,  and  1  war  may  be  the  confluence.  Was  the  conftitu- 
t    n  uide  when   he  formed   fuch  an   article? 

D  J  lie  neao  by  it  to  brow-beat  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives  into 
1  .     fures  ?  Did  he  flatter  himfelf  that  the  freemen 

1  America  would  confent  to  any  thing,  to  a  proftitution  of 
th<  ir  constitution,  to  a  dereliction  of  every  thing  valuable  to 
tli>  oi,  rather  than  unlheath  the  fword  againft  his  "great,  good, 
and  .  13-jt  the  commiilioners   are  to  fix   the  time 

.,  ami  the  place  where,  the  monies  awarded  are  to  be  paid. 
Do  not  the  prelident  and  fenate  undertake  to  raife  a  revenue, 
when  they  agree  to  pay  the  award  of  the  com.niffioners  at  the 
time  they  fhall  agree  upon  ?  Is  this  leaving  the  raifing  of  reve- 
nue to  congrefs,  as  pointed  out  by  the  conftitution  ?  The  pre fi- 
dent  and  fenate  have  agreed  to  appropriate  the  monies  of  the 
United  States  without  any  law  but  their  own  will  !  ! 

Fellow  citizens,  thefe  are  not  imaginary  things,  conjured  up 
bv  a  diltempered  or  difcontented  mind — they  are  plain  facets, 
which  are  comprehenfible  to  every  capacity,  and  merit  the  fe- 
rious  attention  of  every  man  who  feels  an  intereft  in  the  wel- 
fare of  his  country.  If  the  prefident  can  torture  the  conftituti- 
on into  a  juftifkation  of  fuch  conduct,  it  lives  but  in  name,  it 
is  an  ideal  exigence,  which  can  be  fafhioned  according  to  the 
whim  or  caprice  of  the  man  who  adminifters  it.  Such  a  mock- 
ery of  republicanifm  muit  roufe  the  indignation  of  every  un- 
corrupt  citizen,  and  animate  him  to  an  endeavour  to  fix  his 
rights  upon  a  more  certain  and  permanent  bafis.  If  a  fubmif- 
iion  can  be  had  to  fuch  a  ftate  of  things  as  the  prefident  has 
o'.ited,  at  this  moment,  when  our  conftitution  has  fcarcely 
rifen  from  its  cradle,  we  may  bid  adieu  to  liberty,  and  the 
philofopher  and  the  patriot  may  bemoan  the  degraded  ftate  of 
human  nature,  that  has  fuffered  the  faireil  profpects  of  happi- 
nefs  to  be  overfhadowed  by  a  pretended  man  of  the  people. 


ATTICUS. 


Auguft  28,   1795. 


No.  IX. 


A  MISTAKE  has  happened  in  the  vocabulary  of  our 
country,  and  inltead  of  Jaccbinifmy  Jacobitifm  has  reared. 
its  ln.iky  creft  among  us.  PaJJive-obedience  and  non-refijlance  arc 
now  the  order  of  the  day,  and  he  who  will  not  fubienbe  to  the 
divine  attributes  of  the  prefident  is  excommunicated,  and  the 


Atticus — No.  IX.  151 

dire  interdict  of  Anarchift,  Antifederalifr.  and  Traitor  is  ful- 
minated againft  him  with  all  the  fury  which  characterized  the 
Vatican  of  Hildebrand.  But  if  fuch  appellations  are  bellowed, 
and  with  fuch  liberality,  on  the  friends  of  the  confb'tution,  on 
thofe  who  wifh  its  chaftity  preferved,  and  with  a  vefHI  nurity 
fecured  from  the  rude  attacks  of  the  ravilher-,  by  what  charac- 
ters fhall  we  dcfignate  thofe,  who  with  unfeeling  heart  mike 
their  barbarous  afi'aults,  as  if  liberty's  goddefs  had  fumed  har- 
lot ?  Can  language  be  too  ftrong,  or  acumen  too  poignant  to 
defcribe  or  to  punilh  the  incendiaries  oi  virtue  ? 

1 he  Knights  of  the  funding  fyfem,  the  Jartizaries  of  govern - 
went,  the  Jacobites  and  their  Pretlnder,  are  in  alarm — they 
have  founded  the  toefin,  and  have  pronounced  1  woe  iipbri 
thofe  who  do  not  fall  down  and  worfnip  the  golden  image 
which  Nebuchadnezzar  has  fet  up.  Pompey's  entrance  into  tne 
fanchim  fantlorum  did  not  excite  more  horror  and  difmay  in 
the  Ifraelites,  than  lifting  the  mafk  from  the  prefident,  and  1  !- 
playing  his  natural  vifage,  have  rr.ifed  in  the  noble  orders  of  oiu 
country.  To  touch  the  hem  of  the  garment  of  this  fabled  h 
prieft  of  liberty  would  beget  diftrefs  in  fuch  interefted  bi\  ois  ; 
but  to  llrip  him  of  his  pontifical  robes,  and  (how  him  un  wor- 
thy of  them,  would  be  in  their  eftimatfon,  to  drefs  na;  ire  in 
mourning,  and  extinguifh  the  lamp  of  liberty  f  r  ever.  When 
men  have  purpofes  to  anfwer,  nothing  can  h  00  .ihfurd  "or 
them  to  pratfife ;  and  hence  the  Egyptian  pr  eft,  to  fa*  >t  his 
own  views,  had  conferred  divinity  upon  an  ox.  it  is!  igh  '  •  e 
that  a  fuperftitious  veneration  for  a   num.   a-nl  a  I  o\ 

fhould   be  exiled  from  the  manfion  of  liberty.   Ir  is  high  •  me 
the  temple  of  freedom  fhould  no  longer  be    >r  raned  bv     I 
trous  worfhip,    and    be  ufurped   by   ufut*  ,     1 

jobbers,  and  (peculators.  When  men   are  fubttitutec    for  pritic ■'« 
pies,  liberty    is  as  much  outraged,  as    rirhen    the    Deity  is     u 
planted  by  a  prieft.  No  longer  the  dupe  of  the    art  fi  e  < 
has  been  pra£f.ifed  but  too  fuccefs folly  upon  the  honed  a 
fufpec'ting  American,  he  has  at  length  (hakeu  oil"  the 
of  confidence  that  made  him  (lumber  over  his  wrong 
now  carries  his  crimination  to  the  fource  of  all  his  evil 
his difgraces.  There  is  jultice  in  this,  there  is  mai 
he  who  (brinks  from  fuch  a  talk,  or  feels  terror  at  its  perfoi 
is  unworthy  the  name  oi  freeman.    What !   .Shall  th    c  t 
of  Hamilton  deter  freemen  from  fpeaking  their  fei  tir  : 
the    crv    of  "    treafon  P"   1^   the   Jacobite    language    of 
dent's  new  ally  already  legitimifed  among  us,  that  it  ha    I 
treafon  to  pubhlh  our   fentiments?    Alas!    what  irtl 

nerve  among   the  Jacobites,  when  a  yihijjfett  is  deputed  to  ao 


1^2  Atticus— No.  IX. 

the  duty  of  a  fturdy  maftiff !  Let  fuch  animals  bark,  my  fellow 
citizens,  while  we  proceed  to  the  confideration  of  the  uncon- 
flitutionality  of  the  treaty,  and  trace  in  it  the  real  "  traitors" 
of  our  country. 

The  8th  article  of  the  treaty  is  a  further  interference  with 
the  conftitutional  power  of  Congrefs  to  raife  money,  and  make 
appropriations;  for  it  declares,  that  "  the  commiihoncrs  fhall 
be  relpectively  paid  in  fuch  manner  as  fhall  be  agreed  upon  between 
the  parties  ;  and  all  ether  expenfes  attending  the  /aid  eowmfjiotif 
Jha/I  be  defrayed  jointly  by  the  two  parties,  the  fame  being  previ- 
oujly  afcertained  and  allowed  by  a  majority  of  the  commiffi oners. ". 
Who  are  "  the  parties"  in  this  cafe?  The  king  of  Great  Britain, 
the  prefident  and  the  fenate.  Who  agree  to  pay  the  expenfes 
of  this  commiffion  ?  The  king  and  the  prefident  and  the  fenate. 
Do  not  the  prefident  and  fenate  pledge  themfelves  by  this  arti- 
cle to  raife  and  appropriate  money  to  fatisfy  the  expenfes  of  the 
commiflion?  Does  the  constitution  recognize  a  right  in  them  to 
make  monied  contracts?  From  whence  did  they  derive  this  pre- 
rogative ?  Did  they  receive  a  new  commiflion  of  powers  from 
the  pr eft dent's  new  ally  ?  If  the  prefident  and  fenate  can  con- 
tract debts  for  one  dollar ,  they  can  do  it  for  a  million,  the  right  is 
the  fame  in  extent  thai  it  is  in  degree;  and  by  treaty  they 
may  mortgage  the  United  States.  Is  this  prefidential  and  fena- 
toriai  contract  the  conflitutional  mode  of  "  raifing  and  appropri- 
ating money  according  to  law?"  The  conduct  of  the  prefident  in 
this  cafe,  in  point  of  ufui  nation,  is  not  unlike  that  he  purfued  in 
1776,  when  he  was  only  the  officer  of  congrefs,  in  raifing  men 
and  increafing  their  pay  without  any  authority  from  that  power 
under  whom  he  acted,  and  from  whom  he  held  his  commiffion. 
The  necejjjty  of  this  cafe  cannot  be  pleaded  in  extenuation  of  a 
breach  of  a  folemn  contract. 

In  the  amendments  to  the  conflitution  we  find  the  following 
article  :  "  The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  con- 
futation, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  fates,  are  referred  to  the  Jlates 
refpeElively,  or  to  the  people."  The  9th  article  of  the  treaty  con- 
tains the  following  extraordinary  ftipulation  ;  "  It  is  agreed 
that  Britifh  fubjects  who  now  hold  lands  in  the  territories  of 
the  United  States,  and  American  citizens  who  now  hold  land* 
in  the  dominions  of  his  majefty,  fhall  continue  to  hold  them 
according  to  the  nature  and  tenure  of  their  refpective  eftates 
and  titles  therein:  and  may  grant,  fell  and  devife  the  fame  to 
whom  they  pleafe,  in  like  manner  as  if  they  were  natives;  and 
that  neither  they  nor  their  heirs  or  affigns  fhall,  as  far  as  may 
refpect  the  faid  lands,  and  the  legal  remedies  incident  thereto, 
be  regarded  as  aliens,"  By  what  part  of  the  conftitutionhave  the 


Camillus— No.  XXVI.  153 

prefident  and   fenate  the  power  of   regulating  the  tenure  of 
real  eftates  ?  We  look  in  vain  for  fuch  a  grant  in  the  conltitu- 
tion,  even  to  congrefs  itfelf ;  this  right  then,  not  being  delegated 
to  the  United  States,  nor  "  prohibited"   by   the   conftitut:   ' 
the  dates,   is  "  referved  to  the  jlates  rejpeclive/y,  or  to  the  p  ' 

Shall  the  prefident   dare  to  invade  the  chartered  righ 
ftates  ?  Shall  he  not  only  expunge  the  letter  and  I  f 

the  conititution,  but  (hall  he  add  to  it  fuch  parr>  1- 

incidence   with  his   arbitrary   views  ?  Shall  the  c  ->e 

converted  into  wax  by  him,  ready  to  receive  the  ira  fa 

Ciejhr  or  a  Cromiuell? 

This  article  has  a  reciprocity  in  ivords  ;   but  let  n  what 

number  of  American  citizens   hold   real   property  •    IJii- 

tannic  majefty's  dominions?  Can  figures  calculate  ,  number 
of  acres  which  Briti/h  fubjecls  hold  in  the  United  Stat*  \  r  Li  ;ir 
patents  fwarm  over  our  country  like  the  lecufts  of  ^gyp'»  a  d 
in  a  little  time  not  a  fhrub  or  a  plant  wili  be  feeu  in  n-^jbhc- 
anifm  or  morals  that  lhall  have  efenped  their  ravages. 

Fellow  citizens,  when  we  confider  thefe  things,  on  whom 
does  the  charge  of  ingratitude  reft  ?  On  the  people  w'>o  have 
idolized  the  prefident,  and  have  advanced  him  to  the  greased 
honors  and  the  utmoft  powers  which  can  be  communicated  by 
freemen,  or  on  the  prefident,  who  has  abandoned  the  people, 
and  has  confidered  the  voice  and  the  interelt  of  a  faction,  inltead 
of  the  voice  and  the  interelt  of  his  country  ? 

ATTICUS. 


[TO    BE    CONTINUED.] 

Defence  of  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty. 

[CONTINUED   FROM  PAGE  63.] 

No.  XXVI. 

THE  Britifti  trade  to  their  pofTeffions  in  their  Eaft  Indies, 
as  well  as  to  China,  is  a  monopoly  veiled  by  the  legif- 
lature  in  a  company  of  merchants.  No  other  perfons  in  Great 
Britain,  nor  in  any  of  her  dominions  or  colonies,  can  fend  a 


1 54     „  Camillus — No.  XXVI. 

veflel  to,  or  profecute  trade  independent  of  the  company,  with 
any  part  of  Afia.  The  right  to  trade  with  their  pofleflions  in 
India  is  not  onlv  refufed  to  all  Britifh  fubje£ts,  the  India  com- 
pany excepted,  but  is  one,  that  Great  Britain  has  never  before 
yielded  by  treaty  to  any  foreign  nation.  By  the  terms  of  the 
charter  to  the  India  company,  among  a  variety  of  limitations, 
they  are  reflrained  and  confined  to  a  direct  trade  between  Afia 
and  the  port  of  London  ;  they  are  prohibited  from  bringing 
any  of  the  productions  of  India  or  China  directly  to  any  part 
of  America,  as  well  to  the  Britifh  colonies  as  to  our  territories  ; 
and  moreover  they  are  retrained  from  carrying  any  of  the  pro- 
ductions of  Afia,  directly  to  any  part  of  Europe,  or  to  any 
port  in  Great  Britain,  Scotland,  or  Ireland,  except  the  fingle 
port  of  London. 

The  13th  article  ftipulates,  that  our  veflels  (hall  be  admitted 
in  all  the  fea  ports  and  harbours  of  the  Britifh  territories  in  the 
Eafl  Indies,  and  that  our  citizens  may  freely  carry  on  a  trade 
between  faid  territories  and  the  United  States,  in  all  fuch  arti- 
cles, of  which  the  importation  or  exportation  fhall  not  be  en- 
tirely prohibited  ;  provided  only,  that  when  Great  Britain  is  at 
war,  we  may  not  export  from  their  territories  in  India,  without 
the  permiffion  of  their  local  government  there,  military  (lores, 
naval  (lores,  or  rice.  Our  veflels  fhall  pay  in  this  trade,  the 
fame  tonnage  duty  as  is  paid  by  Britifh  veflels  in  our  ports  ;  and 
our  cargoes  on  their  importation  and  exportation  fhall  pay  no 
other  or  higher  charges  or  duties  than  fhall  be  payable  on  the 
fame  articles  when  imported  or  exported  in  Britifh  bottoms; 
but  it  is  agreed  that  this  trade  fhall  be  direct  between  the  United 
States  and  the  faid  territories  ;  that  the  article  fhall  not  be  deem- 
ed to  allow  the  veflels  of  the  United  States  to  carry  on  any 
part  of  the  coafting  trade  of  the  Britifh  territories  in  India,  nor 
to  allow  our  citizens  to  fettle  or  refide  within  the  faid  territo- 
ries, or  to  go  into  the  interior  parts  thereof,  without  the  per- 
milTion  of  the  Britifli  local  government  there. 

The  Britifh  trade  to  their  territories  in  the  Eaft  Indies  is  car- 
ried on  by  a  corporation,  who  have  a  monopoly  againft  the  great 
body  of  Britifh  merchants.  Our  trade  to  the  fame  territories 
will  be  open  to  the  (kill  and  enterprize  of  every  American  citi- 
zen. The  Britifli  trade  to  thefe  territories  is  direct,  but  confined 
to  the  port  of  London  ;  our  trade  to  the  fame  muft  likewife  be 
direct,  but  may  be  carried  on  from  and  to  all  our  principal 
ports. 

The  article  gives  us  a  right  in  common  with  the  India  com- 
pany to  carry  to  thefe  territories,  and  to  purchafe  and  bring 
from  thence,  all  articles  which  may  be  carried  to  or  purchafed 


Camillus — No.  XXVI.  155 

and  brought  from  the  fame,  in  Britifh  veffels :  our  cargoes 
paying  native  duties,  and  our  (hips  the  fame  alien  tonnage  as 
Britifh  fhips  pay  in  our  ports.  Th;s  trade  is  equally  open  to  both 
nations;  except  when  Great  Britain  is  engaged  in  war,  when 
the  confent  of  the  Britifh  local  government  is  required  in  order 
to  enable  us  to  export  naval  itores,  military  fibres,  and  rice  ;  a 
limitation  of  fmall  confequence  :  none  of  the  articles  except 
nitre  being  likely  to  form  any  part  of  our  return  cargoes. 
Though  this  article  is  one  agaiuft  which  the  objection  of  a  want 
of  reciprocity  (fo  often,  and  fo  uncandidly  urged  againfl  other 
parts  of  the  treaty)  has  not  been  preferred,  it  has  not  however 
efcaped  cenfure. 

It  is  faid  that  we  are  already  in  the  enjoyment  of  a  lefs  re- 
trained commerce  with  the  Britifh  territories  in  India,  and 
that  the  treaty  will  alter  it  for  the  worfe  :  in  as  much  as  we 
thereby  incapacitate  ourfelves  to  carry  on  any  part  of  the  coaft- 
ing  trade  of  the  Britifh  territories  in  India,  and  as  we  relinquilh 
the  profitable  freights  to  be  made  between  Bombay  and  Canton, 
and  likewife  thofe  fometimes  obtained  from  the  Englilh  territo- 
ries in  Bengal  to  Oitend. 

It  would  feem  a  fufficient  anfwer  to  fay,  that  this  trade  has 
heretofore  exifted  by  the  mere  indulgence  of  thofe  who  per- 
mitted it,  that  it  was  liable  to  variations,  that  a  total  exclufion, 
efpecially  had  it  been  of  us  in  common  with  other  foreign  na- 
tions, could  have  afforded  no  juft  ground  of  complaint :  That 
the  relaxation  which  has  hitherto  given  us  admilhon  to  the 
Britifh  India  territories,  was  not  a  permanent,  but  a  mere  tem- 
porary and  occafional  regulation,  liable  to  alteration,  and  by  no 
means  to  be  demanded  as  the  bafis  of  an  intercourfe  to  be  ad- 
jufted  by  compact,  with  a  foreign  nation,  which  would  no  long- 
er leave  the  power  of  alteration  in  either  of  the  parties. 

But  in  refpedl  to  the  firit  objection,  the  article  amounts  to 
this,  that  the  rights  which  it  does  grant,  fhall  not  by  implica- 
tion be  conftrued  to  give  a  right  to  carry  on  any  part  of  the 
Britifh  coafting  trade  in  India. 

If  we  have  before  lhared  in  this  trade  by  permiffion,  nothing 
in  the  article  will  preclude  us  from  enjoying  the  fame  in  future. 
If  we  did  not  participate  in  it,  nothing  in  the  article  impairs 
either  the  authority  of  the  Britifh  local  government  to  permit 
our  participation  or  our  capacity  to  profit  by  fuch  permiffion — 
1  is  objection,  therefore,  falls  to  the  ground,  fince  the  coafting 
trade  i 1  nains  as  it  was  before  the  treaty  was  formed. * 

*  rhc  terms  ufed  clearly  denote  this  and  nothing  more;  they  are — "  It  is 
alfo  un  Titood  that  the  perrr.'jfion  granted  by  this  at '.id*  is  not  to  extend  to  alleiv." 
This  does  not  negative  any  urc-CJUiting  indulgence,  but  merely  provides  that  the 


156  Camillus — No.  XXVI. 

Further,  according  to  my  information — It  is  not  the  trade 
between  the  Eaft  Indies  and  China,  as  has  been  erroneoufly 
fuppofed  by  fome  perfons,  but  the  exportation  of  rice  and  other 
articles,  which  are  exchanged  between  the  Britifh  territories 
ifl  the  hither  and  further  Indies,  that  is  denominated  the  coaft- 
ing trade  of  the  Britifh  territories  in  India.  The  importance 
of  this  trade  is  not  well  underftood ;  nor  am  I  able  to  fay  whe- 
ther we  have  heretofore  been  allowed  to  carry  it  on.  If  we 
have,  the  little  that  we  have  heard  of  it,  leads  to  an  opinion 
that  it  is  not  an  object  of  much  confequence.  Let  it,  however, 
be  granted  that  hereafter  we  fhall  not  be  allowed  to  engage  in 
it.  Shall  we  have  more  reafon  to  complain  of  this  exclufion, 
than  we  have  that  we  are  refufed  a  fhare  in  the  coafting  trade 
of  the  European  dominions  of  Great  Britain  ?  or  that  we  are 
excluded  from  the  coafting  trade  between  their  iilands  in  the 
Welt  Indies  ?  Or  than  the  Britifh  themfelves  have,  that  by  our 
prohibiting  tonnage  duty  (being  fifty  cents  per  ton  on  entry  of 
a  foreign  vefTel,  when  our  own  coafting  veffels  pay  only  fix 
cents  per  ton,  for  a  year's  licenfe)  they  are  excluded  from  fharing 
in  our  coafting  trade  ;  a  branch  of  bufinefs  that  already  em- 
ploys a  large  proportion  of  our  whole  navigation,  and  is  daily 
increafing. 

In  refpett  to  the  fecond  and  third  objections,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, that  fo  far  as  the  trade  has  been  heretofore  enjoyed, 
it  has  been  in  confequence  of  an  exception  from,  and  relaxati- 
on in,  the  fyftem  by  which  the  European  commerce  has  been 
regulated  *,  that  having  depended  on  the  mere  occafional  per- 
miffion  of  the  local  government,  we  may  fafely  infer  (though 
it  may  have  been  fuppofed  incompatible  with  the  difcretionary 
powers,  vefted  in  that  government,  to  confer  by  treaty  a  pofi- 
tive  right  to  carry  on  the  trade  in  queftion)  that  fo  long, 
and  as  often  as  the  inteveft  that  has  heretofore  induced  the  grant 
of  this  permiflion  fhall  continue  or  exift,  the  permiffion  will  be 
continued  or  renewed.  The  ftipulation,  reftraining  the  trade, 
may,  if  the  parties  fee  fit,  be  difpenfed  with,  and  the  trade 
may  be  enlarged,  or  made  free  : — It  being  a  contract  only  be- 
tween them  and  us,  the  parties  are  freo  to  remodify  it ;  and 
without  a  formal  alteration,  if  thofe  in  whofe  favor  the  reftraint 
is  made,  confent  to  remove  it,  the  other  party  is  releafed  from 
the  obligation  to  obferve  it.* 

main  grant  mall  not  convert  the  revocable  Indulgence,  if  any  there  was  in  this  par- 
ticular, into  an  irrevocable  right  by  treaty. 

*  This  has  hecn  affected  to  be  qucftiohed  on  accost  of  what  is  called  the 
r><  remptorinefs  of  tbc  expreffiotis  (to  wit)  "  It  is  exbrefdy  agreed  that  the  veffels 
«f  the  United  States  Jkall  not  carry,  fcrV,"    But  there  is  no  real  room  for  the 


Camillus— No.  XXVI.  157 

Again — Surat,  which  is  in  the  neighbonrhood  of  Bombay, 
is  the  emporium  of  the  Guzeat,  and  of  the  northern  portion 
of  the  Malabar  coaft ;  the  cottons  (hipped  from  Bombay  to 
Canton,  are  frequently  firft  fent  from  Surat  to  Bombay.  Surat 
belongs  to  the  native  powers  to  which  we  have  free  accefs.  If 
the  tranfportation  of  cotton  ami  fome  few  other  commodities 
from  the  coaft  of  Malabar  to  Canton  is  an  important  branch 
of  our  commerce,  what  will  prevent  our  proiecuting  it  from 
Surat  or  any  other  free  port  in  the  hither  Indies  ? 

That  it  may  be  undertaken  from  the  ports  of  the  native  pow- 
ers is  rendered  probable,  by  the  circumftance,  that  thefe  freights 
are  fupplied  principally  or  alone  by  the  native  or  black  mer- 
chants, whofe  refidence  would  naturally  be  in  the  ports  under 
native  jurifdiclioti  more  frequently  than  in  thofe  under  the  ju- 
rifdittion  of  any  of  the  foreign  powers. 

But  is  it  not  true  (and  will  not  candour  admit  it)  that  the 
trade  to  the  Afiatic  dominions  of  the  European  powers  lias  ufu- 
ally  been  confined  to  the  nation  to  whom  fuch  territories  be- 
long ?  In  our  treaty  with  Holland,  have  we  not  even  ftipulated 
to  refpett  their  monopoly  of  this  trade  ?  And  by  our  treaty 
with  France,  a  nation  whofe  liberal  policy  is  faid  to  have  laid 
us  under  eternal  obligations  of  gratitude,  have  we  acquired  the 
flighted:  pretentions,  much  left  a  right,  to  refort  to,  or  trade 
with  any  part  of  their  Afiatic  territories  ? 

A  late  decree  of  the  convention  which  opened  to  us  the  ports 
in  their  Weft  Indies,  LikewHe  laid  open  their  remaining  terri- 
tories in  Afia — But  this  meafure  proceeding  from  the  necefft- 
ties  of  the  war  and  their  inability  to  (tarry  on  their  foreign 
commerce,  will  change  hereafter,  as  heretofore  it  has  done, 
with  the  eftabliihment  of  peace — Did  this  opinion  require  to 
be  ftrengthened,  it  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  navigation 
ac"t,  decreed  by  the  convention  :  The  operation  whereof  is  fui- 
pended  for  the  fame  reafon  that  induced  tlie  opening  to  foreign- 
ers that  trade  to  their  colonics  and  territories  in  the  Weft  and 
Eaft  Indies. 

The  Britiih  for  more  than  a  hundred  years  excluded  foreign- 
ers from  a  (hare  in  their  Eaft  India  trade  ;  for  a  few  years  pari 
Vol.  III.  Z 

•queflion — In  3  contract  between  two  parties,  whether  individuals  or  nation', 
where  a  reftraint  is  impofed  upon  one  for  the  benefit  <>f  another,  it  is  always  an 
implied  condition  of  the  reftrain:  that  it  ftir.ll  continue,  unlefs  di/ferfed  teiti  hy  the 
party  for  whole  hen-slit  it  is  impofed — Thus  :he  Britifh  government  in  India  may 
remove  the  reftraint,  by  continuing  the  indulgence  in  this  refpect  heretofore 
granted — And  it  feems  to  me  clear  that  the  laws  which  the  United  Stares  are 
to  pafs,  for  enforcing  the  prohibition,  may,  with  good  faith,  be  ija.'.liried  with 
this  provifion,  u  unleft  by  pcfpiijftoit  »/  tic  Britfi  government  m  h  liii" 


i  j 8  Ca MILL u  s — No.  XXVI. 

they  relaxed  in  the  rigour  of  this  fyftem.  We  have  availed 
ourfelves  of  this  ciricumftanee,  and  fhared  with  them  in  their 
India  commerce.  But  this  permiffion  can  be  viewed  only  as  an 
occaiional  departure  from  a  general  law;  which  may  be  arrett- 
ed by  a  change  of  circumftances,  the  duration  of  which,  there- 
fore, is  uncertain.  The  lofs  and  inconvenience  to  which  our 
merchants  may  be  expofed  from  the  profecution  of  a  trade, 
depending  on  regulations  arifing  fcom  inconftant  circumftances, 
and  which  frequently  vary,  may,  in  fome  meafure,  be  guard- 
ed againft,  where  the  fcene  is  not  remote,  and  the  alterations 
in  the  laws  can  be  known  foon  after  they  are  made.  But  in 
the  Afiatic  and  our  other  diftant  commerce,  it  is  of  importance 
that  the  laws  under  which  an  adventure  is  begun,  fhould  be 
permanent.  Loills  to  a  considerable  amount  have  been  expe- 
nd bv  fome  of  our  merchants,  who  have  undertaken  dif- 
tant voyages  in  the  expectation  of  the  continuation  of  thefe 
temporary  regulation's.  The  trade,  for  example,  to  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  (Which  the  Dutch  government  ordinarily  mo- 
nopolize to  their  own  people)  was  fome  time  fince  opened  to 
foreigners,  and  fome  of  our  citizens  profited  by  it  ;  bur  others, 
who  had  engaged  in  large  adventures  to  that  market,  fuffered 
no  fmall  difappointment  and  lofs  in  finding  themfelves  excluded, 
upon  their  arrival  by  a  repeal  of  the  permiffion  to  foreigners  to 
trade  there.  It  mult  then  be  considered  as  an  important  objecl: 
fecured,  in  refpecl  to  the  principal  proportion  of  our  India 
trade,  that  alone  which  is  capable  of  being  purfued  as  a  branch 
of  our  commerce,  that  the  treaty  turns  a  favor  into  a  right, 
and  that  our  direct  intercourfe  with  the  Britifli  territories  in  the 
Eaft  Indies,  in  all  refpects  as  broad  as  that  of  Great  Britain 
herfelf  (except  in  the  articles  of  rice,  naval  and  military  ftores, 
when  Great  Britain  is  engaged  in  war)  inftead  of  being  an  un- 
certain and  hazardous  trade,  as  heretofore,  from  its  precarious 
nature,  it  has  been,  will,  hereafter,  be  as  certain  as  any  in 
which  our  merchants  lhall  engage. 

It  is  further  alleged,  by  way  of  objection  to  this  article,  that 
it  does  not  fectire  to  our  citizens  a  right  to  refide  and  fettle  in 
the  BriiiMi  territories  in  India,  without  the  confent  of  the  Bri- 
tifli local  government.  The  obfervation  that  has  been  made  on 
a  fimilar  objection,  in  reipect  to  the  coafting  trade  in  India,  is 
equally  applicable  to  this.  The  article  leaves  fubjecls  nrecifely 
in  the  (kuation  in  which  it  found  them.  But  let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  the  difproportion  between  the  numbers  of  the  native 
Indians  and  the  foreigners  inhabiting  their  country,  is  more 
than  one  thoufand  of  the  former  to  one  of  the  latter — that  the 
moft  exact;  discipline  and  fubordination  among  the  foreigners 


Ca  MILL  us — No.   XXVI.  I59 

are  therefore  efiential  to  the  preservation  of  the  Britifii  authori- 
ty over  that  country — that  no  foreigner,  or  even  a  Britifii  fub- 
ject,  is  allowed  to  refide  there,  except  in  the  character  of  a 
fervant  of  the  company,  or  of  a  lice n fed  inhabitant  —  that  it  has 
Jong  been  held  as  a  found  opinion,  that  unreftrained  liberty  to 
the  Europeans  to  emigrate  to,  and  fettle  among  the  Indians, 
would,  in  a  fhort  time,  overturn  and  dellroy  the  Biiiifii  empire 
in  India — This  danger  would  by  no  means  be  diminiflied  by 
conferring  a  right  upon  the  Americans,  freely  to  refide  and  let- 
tie  in  India — that  we  fliall  be  allowed  to  refide  and  fettle  there 
by  permifiion  of  the  local  Britifii  government,  is  fairly  to  be 
inferred  from  the  article.  But  an  abfolute  right  to  an  entire 
liberty  on  thefe  points,  might  evidently  be  dangerous  to  the 
Britifii  government  over  India — and  in  prudence  could  not  I 
been  ftipulated. 

The  advantageous  footing  on  which  the  trade  is  placed,  is 
fo  evident,  that  thofe  who  had  no  reliance  on  the  objections 
urged  againft  it,  but  who,  neverthelefs,  have  been  unwilling  tq 
allow  the  treaty  any  merit  on  the  fcore  of  this  article,  have  en- 
deavoured to  fliow  that  our  India  trade  is  of  little  importance^ 
and  of  fmall  value. 

Whatever  article  can  be  fupplied  by  the  India  company,  may 
likewife  be  fupplied  by  us,  and  fome  of  them  on  better  terms 
by  us,  than  by  them  :  The  reports  of  the  committee  of  the 
rectors  of  the  Eafh  India  company,  published  in    1793, 
their  charter  was  renewed,  afford  ufeful   information   on  this. 
fubject,  and  difclofe  facts  which  ihow  the  advant  iges  thai 
fliall  pofiefs  in  this  trade  over  the  company.    They  admit,  that 
in  the  articles  of  iron,  wines,  canvas,  co'dage,   arms,  and  n  f- 
val  and  military  ftores,   foreigners  can  enter  into   a   beneficial 
competition  with   them,  and  that  canvas  and  cordage,  and  wo 
may  add,  all  naval  (tores  and  feveral  other  articles,  can  al« 
be  furniihed  in  India  by  foreigners,   ehe  ■  by  the  com- 

pany. 

If  we  appreciate  the  advantage  we  have  over  thorn,  in  fuch 
articles  of  fuppiy  as  are  of  our  own  growth  or  production,  as 
well  as  in  the  wines  not  unufually  procured  by  touching  at  Ma- 
deira on  the  outward  voyage  to  India,  and  compare  it  with  the 
advantage  that  they  have  over  us  111  the  few  articles,  oi  choice, 
which  they  purchafe  at  the  (hit  hand;,,  and  which  we  oiuft  im- 
port in  order  to  re-export  to  India,  it  is  probable  that  our  car- 
goes to  India,  will,  on  the  whole,  be  laid  in  as  advantageoufly, 
if  not  more  fo,  than  thofe  of  the  India  company.  If  we  con- 
lid,  r  the  valf.  extent  of  territory,  the  numer  >us  population* 
and  the  cllabliflied  manufacture  fuppqfing 


16&  Camillus — No.  XXVI. 

that  a  free  trade  to  that  country  will  be  pf  little  value  to  a 
young  and  enterprifing  nation,  whole  manufactures  are  flill  in 
their  infancy,  we  ought  rather  to  conclude  that  it  is  a.  country 
with  which  we  fhould  be  folicitousto  eftab'ifh  a  free  trade  and 
intercourfe. 

Every  one  who  has  beftowM  tiie  flighted  attention  upon  the 
foreign  manufactures  confumed  in  our  country,  muft  have  ob- 
ferved  the  general  and  increafing  u(e  of  thofe  of  India,  owing 
to  the  better  terms  on  which  they  can  be  procured  from  Aha 
than  from  Europe.  Though  no  document  is  at  hand  that  will 
Ihow  the  value  of  the  annual  importations  from  India,  it  is 
ftated  by  Mr.  Coxe,  in  his  View  of  the  United  States,  that 
the  amount  in  value  of  our  importations  from  AGa  is  more 
than  one  fifth  of  the  value  of  our  whole  annual  confumption 
of  foreign  commodities.  It  is  true  that  the  porcelain,  filks, 
nankeens,  and  teas  of  China,  form  a  large  portion  of  this  an- 
nual importation.  But,  after  a  full  deduction  on  this  account, 
a  great  and  profitable  branch  of  our  commerce  will  be  found 
in  our  trade  to  the  Eaft-Indies.  It  fhould  be  remembered,  alfo, 
that  it  is  not  the  confumption  of  our  own  country  that  regulates 
the  quantity  of  India  goods  that  we  import  j  other  countries 
have  been  fupplied  through  us  with  the  fabrics  and  productions 
of  both  India  and  China.  The  treaty  will  enlarge  this  demand.* 
Several  circumftances  calculated  to  give  our  trade  with  Afia, 
an  advantage  again  ft  foreign  competition,  and  a  preference  to 
our  trade  with  Europe,  are  deferving  of  attention. 

Firlt.  The  dire£t  trade  between  us  and  Afia,  including  the 
Eaft  Indies  as  well  as  China,  cannot  be  profecuted  by  the  Bri- 
tifh  Eaft  India  company,  their  fhips  being  obliged  to  return  to 
the  port  of  London*  and  there  to  difcharge. 

Second.  The  difference  between  the  duties  on  Afiatic  goods 
imported  in  American  bottoms  direct  from  Afia,  and  the  duties 
impoied  on  the  fame  goods  in  foreign  bottoms  from  Afia  or 
from  Europe ;  being  on  all  articles  a  favorable  difcrimination, 
and  in  the  articles  of  teas,  the  duties  on  thole  imported  in  fo- 
reign bottoms  being  fifty  per  cent,  higher  than  on  thofe  import- 
ed in  American  bottoms. 

The  particular  difference  of  duties  on  Afiaticgoods  import- 
ed in  American  and  in  foreign  bottoms,  fo  favorable  to  our  own 
navigation,  will  not  be  affected  by  the  right  referved  by  Great 
Britain  to  impole  countervailing   duties  in  certain  cafes;  that 

•  Perhaps  from  the  certainty  of  the  rights  which  it  confers,  it  may  invite  a 
foreign  capital  tocxtenfive  enterprizes,  in  which  (he  linked  States  will  be  an  tn- 
ircpot  between  India  and  a  great  prt  of  Eur 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXVI.  161 

right  being  relative  to  the  intercourfe  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Britifh  territories  in  Europe. 

Third.    The  European  intercourfe  with  Afia  is,  in  mod  cafes, 
conducted  by  corporation  or  exclufive  companies — and  all  expe- 
rience has  proved  that  in  every  fpecies  of  bufinefs  (that  of  bank- 
ing and  a  few  analagous  employments  excepted)  in  conducting 
of  which,  a  competition  fhall  exiit  between  individuals  and  cor- 
porations, the  fuperior  economy,  enterprize,  zeal,  and  perfe- 
verance  of  the  former,  will  make  them  an  overmatch  for  the 
latter;  and  that  while  individuals  acquire  riches,  corporations, 
engaged  in  the  fame  bufinefs,  often  fink  their  capital  and  become 
bankrupt.     The  Britifh  Eaft  India  company  are  more  overbur- 
dened with   various  terms  and  conditions,  which  they  are  re- 
quired to  obferve  in  their  Afiatic  trade,  and  which  operate  as 
fo  many  advantages  in  favor  of  their  rivals  in  the  fupply  of  fo- 
reign markets.    The  company,  for  example,  are  obliged  annu- 
ally to  inveft  a  large  capital  in  the  purchafe  of  Britifh  manufac- 
tures to  be  exported  and  fold  by  them  in  India ;    the   lofs  on 
thefe  investments  is  confiderable  every  year,  as  few  of  the  ma- 
nufactures which  they  are  obliged  to  purchafe,  will  fell  in  India 
for  their  coft  and  charges — Befides,  from  the  policy  of  protect- 
ing the  home  manufactures,  the  company  are,  in  a  great  mea- 
fure,  fhut  out  from  fupplying  India  goods  for  the  home  con- 
fumption  of  Great  Britain.    Moll  of  the  goods  which  they  im- 
port from  India,  are  re-exported  with  additional  charges,  incur- 
red by  the  regulations  of  the  company,  to  foreign  markets,  in 
fupplying  of  which  we  fhall  be  their  rivals,  as  from  the  infor- 
mation of  intelligent  merchants,  it  is  a  fact  that  Afiatic  goods, 
including   the  teas  of  China,  are   on  average,  cheaper  within 
the  United  States  than  in  Great  Britain. 

Fourth.    The   manufactures  of  Afia  are  not   only  cheaper 
here  than  in  Europe,  but  in  general  they  are  cheaper  than  goods 
of  equal  quality  of  European  manufacture — So  long  as  from 
the  cheapnefs  of  fubnftence  and  the  immenfe  population  of  In- 
dia (the  inhabitants  of  the  Britifh  territories  only  being  eftimated 
at  forty  millions)  the  labour  of  a  manufacturer  can  be  procured 
from  two  to  three  pence  fterling  per  day,  the  fimilar  manufac- 
tures of  Europe,  aided  with  all  their  ingenious  machinery,  is 
likely,  on  a  fair  competition,  in  almolt  every  inftance,  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  thofe  of  India.    So  apprehenlive  have  the  Britifh  go- 
vernment been  of  endangering  their  home  manufactures  by  the 
permifhon  of  Aiiatic  goods  to  be  confumed  in   Great  Britain, 
that  they  have  impofed  eighteen  per  cent,   duties  on  the  grofs 
fales  of  all  India  muflins,    which  is  equal  to  twenty-two  per 
cent,  on  their  prime  colt:    The  duties  on  coarfer  India  goods 


162  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXVII. 

are  (till  higher,  and  a  long  catalogue  of  Afiatic  articles,  includ- 
ing all  Stained  and  printed  goods,  is  prohibited  from  being  con- 
sumed in  Great  Britain. 

The  Britifh  manufacturers  were  not  Satisfied  even  with  this 
prohibitory  SyStem — And  on  the  late  renewal  of  the  company's 
charter,  they  urged  the  total  exclufion  from  Britifh  confump- 
tion  of  all  India  goods,  and  moreover  propofed  that  the  com- 
pany fhould  be  held  to  import  annually  from  India  a  large 
amount  of  raw  materials,  and  particularly  cotton,  for  the  fup- 
ply  of  the  Britifh  manufacturers. 

Thofc  facts  are  noticed  to  (how  the  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  a  free  accefs  to  the  India  market,  from  whence  we  may 
obtain  thofe  goods  which  would  be  cxtenfively  confumed  even 
j;i  the  firft  manufacturing  nations  of  Europe,  did  not  the  Se- 
curity of  their  manufactories  require  their  exclufion.* 

CAMILLUS, 


No.  XXVII. 


r  ■""'HE  third  article  contains  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
JL  trade  and  intercourfe  that  it  authorifes  between  us  and 
the  Britifh  colonies  on  the  American  continent.  The  twelfth 
article  was  intended  to  adjuit  the  trade  between  us  and  the  Bri- 
tifh iflands  in  the  Weft  Indies.  The  thirteenth  article  Secures 
to  us  a  direct  trade  with  the  Britifli  territories  in  the  Eaft  In- 
dies ;  and  it  is  the  office  of  the  fourteenth  and  the  fifteenth  ar- 
ticles, toafcertain  and  eitablifh  the  terms  of  the  intercourfe  and 
trade  between  the  territories  of  the  United  States  and  the  Bri- 
tifh dominions  in  Europe. 

The  fourteenth  article  eftablifhes  a  perfect  and  reciprocal  li- 
berty of  commerce  and  navigation  between  the  territories  of 
the  United  States  and  of  the  Britifh  dominions  in  Europe;  fti- 
pulates  that  the  people  and  inhabitants  of  the  two  countries  re- 
spectively, namely,  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  Britifh 
dominions  in  Europe,  Sliall  have  liberty  to  come  with  their 
Ships  and  cargoes  to  the  ports,  cities,  and  places  of  each  other, 
within  the  territories  and  dominions  aforefaid,  to  re  fort  and  re- 

•  Oreat  Britain  has  made  it  a  ferioii9  point,  in   which  fhe  has  in  more  than 
one  inftancc  fucceeded,  to  engage  foreign  powers  (the  emperor  was  one)  to  re- 
nounce cftabliflimenxB  lor    carrying  on  the  trade  with  India,  from  their  own 
territories:  yet  thi*  treaty  opens  all  her  territories  to  us.     And  yet  i:  is  n<  I 
ly  daiied  merit,  but  criminated,  in  this  Very  particular. 


Camillus— No.  XXVII.  ^3 

ilde  there,  without  limitation  of  time,  to  hire  houfes  and  (lores 
for  the  purpofe  of  commerce;  and  that  the  merchants  and  tra- 
der.' on  each  fide  {hall  enjoy,  for  their  commerce,  the  fulled 
protection  and  fecurity,  fubject,  notwithstanding,  in  refpect  to 
the  flipulations  of  this  article,  to  the  laws  of  the  two  nations 
refpedtively. 

As  this  article,  in  the  cuftomary  language,  employed  in  the 
introductory  articles  of  commercial  treaties,  fpeaks  of  a  per- 
fect liberty  of  commerce  and  navigation,  without  excepting 
any  commodity,  or  fpecifying  any  import:  or  duty,  it  was  poih- 
ble  that  a  latitude  or  freedom  of  trade,  inconfifter.t  with  the 
revenue  laws,  and  policy  of  the  two  nations,  might  have  been 
claimed  under  it ;  hence  the  propriety  of  the  pro  vi  (ion  with 
which  the  article  concludes,  and  which  referves  to  the  parties 
refpectively,  the  power  of  avoiding  this  inconvenience,  by  con- 
tinuing and  enacting  fuch  laws  as  may  be  proper  for  the  pur- 
pofe. 

But  as  under  this  power  again,  partial  duties,  and  even  par- 
tial cxclufions,  might  have  been  eflablifhed,  whereby  (hips  and 
merchandizes,  as  well  as  the  articles  of  the  growth,  produce, 
or  manufacture  of  one  of  the  parties,  might  have  been  made 
liable  to  higher  duties  and  imports  in  the  territories  of  the 
other,  than  the  ihips  and  fimilar  merchandizes,  and  articles  of 
the  growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  other  nations;  or 
whereby  one  of  the.  parties  might  prohibit  the  importation  or 
exportation,  by  the  other,  of  any  article  to  and  from  his  terri- 
•tories,  the  importation  or  exportation  whereof  was  at  the  fame 
time  free  to  fome  other  nation  :  In  order  to  prevent  fuch  ine- 
qualities, and  to  fecurc  effectually  to  the  parties,  a  right  to  car- 
ry on  their  trade  with  each  other  on  terms  equally  advantage- 
ous and  extenfive,  with  thofe  eitabliihed  by  either,  with  any 
other  nation  :  The  fifteenth  article  Itipulates — 

1.  That  no  other  or  higher  duty  (hall  be  exacted  or  paid, 
en  the  (hips  and  merchandizes,  nor  on  the  articles  of  the 
growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  one  of  the  parties,  on  their 
entry  or  importation  into  the  territories  of  the  other,  than  (hall 
be  payable  on  the  like  (hips,  and  merchandizes,  and  on  (imilar 
articles  of  the  growth,  produce,  or  manufacture  of  any  other 
nation. 

2.  That  no  article,  the  importation  or  exportation  of  which 
by' either  party,  to  or  from  the  territories  of  the  other,  is  pro- 
hibited, (hall  be  imported  or  exported  to  or  from  the  lame  by 
any  other  foreign  nation  ;  and  that  every  article  allowed  to  be 
imported  or  exported  to  or  from  the  territories  ot   either  party, 


164  Cam  ill  us — No.  XXVII. 

by  any  foreign  nation,  may  be  imported  or  exported  to  or  from 
the  fame,  by  the  parties  refpeclively. 

By  thefe  Itipulations  it  is  agreed,  that  the  people  and  inha 
bitauts  of  the  United  States  and   of  the  Britifh  dominions  in 
Europe,  fhall  have  the  right  to  carry  on  trade  between  the  faid 
territories  in  all  articles  and  commodities  in   which  any  other 
foreign  nation  may  trade  with  either  of  the  parties  ;   that  the 
impoft  or  duties  on  any  article  in  the  courfe  ot'fuch  trade,  fhall 
be  no  other  or  higher  than  the  lowelt  impoils  or  duties  paid  by 
any  other  foreign  nation  on  the  like  article  ;    that  both  parties 
fhall  remain  free,  totally  to  prohibit  the  importation  or  export 
ation,  to  or  from  their  refpeclive  territories,  of  any  fpecies  o 
goods  or  merchandize,  or  to  increafe  the  exifting  duties,  or  to 
impofe  new  ones  on  the  importation  of  any  fpecies  of  goods  or 
merchandizes,  into  their  refpeftive  territories ;  fuch  prohibit! 
ons  and  duties  operating  equally  againfl  all  foreign  nations.    So 
far  as  refpects  the  interchange  of  commodities  between  the  par- 
ties, thefe  itipulations  breathe  the  fpirit  of  reciprocity  :  the  re- 
fulue  of  the  fifteenth  article  principally  relates  to  the  navigati- 
on which  the  parties  fhall  employ  in  this  trade. 

The  firft  claufe  of  the    :5th   article,  in   the  fpirit   of  thofe 
treaties  which  mutually  confer  the  right  of  the  mod  favored  na- 
tions, ftipulates  that  no  other  or  higher  duties  fhall  be  paid  b 
the  fhips  of  the  one  party  in  the  ports  of  the  other,  than  fuel 
as  are  paid  by  the  like  vefTels  of  all  other  nations. 

By  our  laws,  a  difference  exifts  between  the   tonnage  dut 
paid  by  an  American  veflel,  and  that  paid  by  a  foreign  veflel  in 
our  ports — the  American  veflel  pays  only  fix  cents  per  ton  on 
her  entry — the  foreign  veflel,  on  her  entry,  pays  fifty  cents  pe 
ton,  and  about  twenty  per  cent,  more  duties  on  all  teas  import 
ed  from  Europe,  and  ten  per  cent,  more  duties  on  the  importa« 
tion.of  other  goods,  than  are  payable  on  the  importation  of  th 
fame  goods,  in  an  American  veflel. 

By  the  Britifh  laws,  the  differences  between  the  duties  pai 
by  Britifh  and  foreign  veffels  in  the  Britifh  ports  in  Europe, 
lefs  than  that  which  exifts  in  our  ports  : — the  confequence 
that  a  Britifh  veflel,  of  a  given  burden,  pays  confiderably  m 
tonnage  duties  in  the  trade  between  our  territories  and  the  B 
tifh  ports  in  Europe,  than  is  paid  by  an  American  veflel  of  t 
fame  burden,  engaged  in  the  fame  trade. 

The  trade  being  laid  open  to  both  parties,  the  principle  oj 
equalization  of  duties  was  very  naturally  deemed  an  equitabfl 
bafis  of  treaty.  This  could  be  effected  by  lowering -the  Amfl 
xican  alien  dutiqsto  the  Britifh  ftandard,  or  by  raifing  thofe  0) 
Great  Britain  to  the  American  ftandard.    The  former  migl 


'o' 


Ca  mill  us— No.  XXVII.  t6j 

have  been  inconvenient  to  our  revenue,  efpecially  fince",  if  it 
Was  not  general,  it  would  have  formed,  in  refpect  to  foreign 
nations,  an  unpleafant  difcrimination  in  our  laws. 

The  American  tonnage  duty,  therefore,  was  left  to  operate; 
and  by  the  15th  article  is  is  agreed,  that  the  Britifh  govern- 
ment (hall  referve  a  right  to  raife  the  tonnage  duty  on  our  vefl 
entering  their  ports  in  Europe,  fo  as  to  make  it  equal  to  the 
tonnage  duty  payable  by  their  veffels  entering  our  ports  :  And 
in  order  to  balance  the  difference  of  duties  on  goods  imported 
into  our  ports  by  American  or  by  Britilh  veffels,  the  effect 
whereof  is  the  fame  as  that  which  proceeds  from  an  alien  ton- 
nage duty,  the  article  further  agrees,  that  the  Britifh  govern- 
ment fhall  referve  a  right  to  impofe  fuch  duty  as  may  be  ade- 
quate to  effect  this  end.  The  preceding  claufe  of  this  article 
fiipulates,  that  the  veffels  and  cargoes  of  each  ihall  pay  no  high- 
er, or  other  duties,  than  thole  impofed  on  the  like  veffels  and 
cargoes  of  all  other  nations  5  it  was,  therefore,  neceffary  to  re- 
ferve a  right  to  increafe  againft  us,  their  alien  tonnage  duty, 
and  to  impofe  the  countervailing  duty  in  queftion  j  as,  without 
fuch  reservation,  the  fame  could  not  have  been  done,  unlcfs  by 
laws  equally  operating  againit  all  other  nations — which  would 
have  been  unjult  in  reference  to  fuch  of  them  as  might  not, 
like  us,  have  difcriminated  in  their  duties  between  their  own 
and  foreign  veffels. 

Two  methods  have  been  fuggefted,  by  which  this  counter* 
vailing  power  might  be  executed. 

One  by  impofing  a  pro  rata  duty  on  the  importation  of  goods 
into  the  Britilh  ports  in  Europe  by  American  veffels,  equal  to 
the  difference  between  the  duties  payable  in  our  ports  on  the 
importation  of  goods  by  American  or  Britifh  veffels. 

The  other,  by  impofing  the  identical  duty  on  the  exportation 
of  goods  from  the  Britilh  ports  in  Europe,  by  American  veffels, 
which  forms  the  difference  between  the  duties  payable  on  the"" 
importation  of  the  lame  goods  into  our  ports  by  American  or 
Britilh  veffels. 

As  the  articles  imported  by  our  veffels  into  the  Britifh  porta 
in  Europe,  are  diilinuiar  from  thofe  imported  from  the  fame 
into  our  ports,  one  rule  of  difference  Would  not  effect  the  equal- 
ization fought  for;  and  as  our  difference  of  duties  is  not  the 
fame  on  all  articles,  being  higher  on  fome  than  on  others — and 
as,  moreover,  the  quantities  and  amount  of  different  articles 
differ  widely,  and  are  liable  to  continual  proportional  variations, 
no  uniform  average  rule  of  countervailing  thefe  differences  can 
be  devifed  ;  the  correct  execution,  therefore,  of  this  power,  in 
Vol.  III.  A  a 


1 66  Ca  m  i  l  L  u  s— No.  XXVII. 

the  method  firft  fuggefted,  is  impracticable,  and,  it  is  prefumed, 
muft  be  difcarded. 

The  power,  then,  it  would  feem,  can  only  be  equitably  ex- 
ercifed  by  impofmgon  the  articles  which  we  fliall  export  in  A- 
merican  veffels  from  the  Britifli  ports  in  Europe,  a  duty  iden- 
tically the  fame  as  that  which  conftitirtes,  in  any  cafe,  the  dif- 
ference of  dutv,  payable  in  our  ports,  on  the  fame  articles  im- 
ported from  the  Britiih  ports  in  Europe,  by  a  Britilli  or  Ame- 
rican veffel.  Thus  they  may  impofe  on  tea  and  other  Afiatic 
goods,  as  well  as  on  the  European  goods,  which  we  fhal!  x- 
port  from  the  Britifli  ports  in  Europe,  the  identical  duty  or  the 
fame  fum  which  conftitutes  the  difference  of  duties  payable  in 
our  ports  on  the  importation  from  thence  of  the  fame  artices 
by  an  American  or  a  Britifli  veffel. 

The  right  to  countervail  our  alien  tonnage  duty  by  impofing 
an  alien  tonnage  duty  on  our  veffels  entering  the  Britiih  ports 
in  Europe,  equal  to  that  which  lhall  be  payable  on  their  veffels 
entering  our  ports,  will  continue  fo  long  as  the  commercial 
treaty  fhall  endure,  and  will  apply  to  any  future  increafe  of 
the  tonnage  duty  on  foreign  veffels  that  we  may  eftablifh  ;  it 
is  however  ftipulated  in  the  conclufion  of  the  fifteenth  article, 
that  we  fhzll  abftain  from  increafing  the  tonnage  duty  on  Bri- 
"tiih  veffels,  and  alio  from  increafing  the  difference  that  now 
exifts  between  the  duties  payable  on  the  importation  of  any  ar- 
ticles into  our  ports  in  Britiih  or  in  American  veffels,  until  the 
expiration  of  two  years  after  the  termination  of  the  war  be- 
tween France  and  Great  Britain.  But  we  are  free  to  increafe 
the  one  cr  the  other,  after  the  expiration  of  that  period  ;  and 
though  the  Britifli  government  will  have  a  right  to  countervail, 
by  additional  tonnage  duties,  on  our  veffels,  any  increafe  of 
that  duty  on  their  veffels  •,  yet  they  will  have  no  right  to  coun- 
tervail any  increafe  of  the  difference  between  the  duties  payable 
on  the  importation  of  any  articles  into  our  ports,  in  Britifli  or 
in  American  veffels,  unlefs  by  a  duty  common  to  all  foreign 
nations ;  the  right  referved  on  this  fubjecf,  being  confined  to 
the  difference  that  noiv  exifts,  will  not  reach  fuch  future  in- 
creafe.* 

From  this  analyfis  of  the  14th  and  15th  articles,  we  are  the 
better  enabled  to  perceive  the  truth  of  the  following  propofi- 
tions. 

•  How  rAl'ctilou-,  thin,  rhc  argument,  if  the  bafis  of  it  were  othcrwifc  true, 
that  the  treaty,  by  tying  up  the  government  from  iotnre  discrimination,  has 
proflrated  our  navigation  b(  fore  Great  Britain  ?  can  a  reftraint  which  is  only  to 
operate  the  fhort  term  of  two  years  after  the  termination  of  the  prelent  war, 
Jiavt  the  mighty  eff.ct  of  facriiking  our  navigation  ? 


Camillus— No.  XXVII.  z6~ 

I.  As,  for  the  purpofe  of  encouraging  or  protecting  the  agri- 
culture and  manufactures  of  Great  Britain,  feveral  of  our  pro- 
ductions, in  common  with  fimilar  productions  of  the  other  na- 
tions, are  prohibited  from  being  imported  into  the  Britifh 
ports  in  Europe  ;  we  are  free,  whenever  our  intereft  fhall  re- 
quire it,  alfo  to  exclude  any  of  the  productions  of  the  Britifh 
dominions  from  being  imported  into  our  ports,  extending  fuch 
exclusions,  as  they  do,  to  the  like  manufactures  and  producti- 
ons of  foreign  nations. 

Should  that  part  of  the  twelfth  article,  which  has  not  been 
ratified,  in  its  modification  retain  the  Stipulation  relative  to  the 
importation  of  coffee,  fugar,  and  the  other  productions  of  the 
Welt  Indies,  it  would  constitute  an  exception  to  this  propofiti- 
on.  But  as  the  Well:  India  productions  are  difiimilar  to  thofe 
of  our  own  country,  they  would  not  fa!!  within  the  reafon  of 
thefe  prohibitions,  and,  therefore,  the  exception  would  be  of 
no  confequence. 

2.  As,  for  the  like  reafons,  fome  of  our  productions  are 
fubject,  in  common  with  the  like  productions  of  other  nations, 
to  high,  or  prohibitory  duties  in  the  Britifii  ports  in  Europe, 
we  are  free,  likewife,  to  impofe  fimilar  duties  on  any  of  the 
productions  or  manufactures  of  the  Britifii  dominions,  extend- 
ing fuch  duties,  as  they  do,  to  the  like  productions  and  manu- 
factures of  other  foreign  nations. 

3.  As  the  navigation  act  of  Great  Britain,  in  order  to  ex- 
tend their  own  fhipping,  has  heretofore  confined  the  importati- 
on of  foreign  productions  into  the  Britifh  ports,  to  Britifii  Ships, 
and  to  the  Ships  of  the  country  producing  the  Same  ;  the  15th 
article  appears  to  contain  an  important  innovation- on  this  ce- 
lebrated act  ;  inafmuch  as,  by  the  molt  obvious  construction  of 
the  terms,  it  gives  us  a  right  to  import  from  our  own  territo- 
ries into  the  British  ports  in  Europe  every  article  and  defcripti- 
on  of  goods  and  merchandizes,  which  any  nation  in  their  own 
Ships  is  allowed  to  import — In  coniequence  whereof,  while  all 
other  foreign  nations  are  prohibited  and  restrained  from  import- 
ing in  their  own  veffels  into  Great  Britain  any  goods  or  mer- 
chandizes, except  thofe  of  their  own  particular  growth,  pro- 
duce, or  manufacture,  wc,  by  the  treaty,  have  a  right  to  carry 
from  our  ports  to  the  British  ports  in  Europe,  not  only  goods 
and  merchandizes  of  our  own  growth,  produce,  or  manufac- 
ture, but  alfo  all  fuch  goods  and  merchandizes,  the  growth, 
produce,  or  manufacture  of  any  foreign  nation,  as  a  nation 
producing  or  manufacturing  the  fame,  would  import  in  their 
velTels  into  Great  Britain. 


J  6*8  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXVII. 

4.  Should  it  ever  be  politic  to  exclude  all  foreign  veffels. 
from  importing,  or  exporting,  any  fpecies  of  goods,  wares,  or 
merchandizes,  by  confining  their  importation  or  exportation 
to  our  own  veffds  ;  we  are  perfectly  free  to  do  fo  j  with  the 
exception,  relative  to  the  Weft  India  productions,  referred  to 
under  the  firft  proposition  ;  thus,  for  example,  we  may  prohi- 
bit the  importation  of  all  Afiatic  goods,  except  in  American 
bottoms. 

That  thefe  articles  of  the  treaty  leave  our  navigation  and 
commerce  as  free,  and  fecure  to  us  as  extenfive  advantages  as 
have  before  been  procured  by  our  commercial  treaties  with  fo- 
reign nations,  will  be  feen  by  the  following  comparifon  : 

1 .  By  the  articles  before  us,  the  parties  reftrain  themfelves 
from  impofing  any  other  or  higher  duties  on  the  veflels  and 
cargoes  of  each  other,  than  they  impofe  on  the  vefTels  and  car- 
goes of  all  other  nations  \  and  alfo  from  impofing  a  prohibiti- 
on of  the  importation  or  exportation  of  any  article  to  or  from 
the  territories  of  each  other,  which  fhall  not  extend  to  all  other 
nations.  By  the  third  and  fourth  articles  of  our  treaty  with 
France,  and  by  the  2d  and  3d  articles  of  our  treaty  with  Pruf- 
fia,  it  is  ftipulated,  that  the  fubjecls  and  citizens  of  the  re- 
fpeftive  parties,  fhall  pay,  in  the  ports,  havens,  and  places  of 
each  other,  no  other  or  greater  duties  or  imports,  of  whatfoe- 
ver  nature  they  may  be,  than  thofe  which  the  nations  moft  fa- 
vored fhall  be  obliged  to  pay  :  and  moreover,  that  they  fhall 
enjoy  all  the  rights,  liberties,  privileges,  and  exemptions  in 
trade,  navigation  and  commerce,  which  the  faid  nations  do, 
or  fhall  enjoy :  and  by  the  2d  article  of  the  former,  and  the 
26th  article  of  the  latter  treaty,  the  parties  agree  mutually, 
not  to  grant  any  particular  favor,  in  refpedl:  to  navigation  or 
commerce,  which  fhall  not  immediately  become  common  to 
the  other  party,  who  fhall  enjoy  the  fame  favor,  if  freely  grant- 
ed, or  on  allowing  the  fame  compenfation,  if  the  conceffion 
was  conditional. 

The  Stipulations  in  the  three  treaties  are,  on  thefe  points, 
equivalent. 

The  2d  and  3d  articles  of  our  treaty  with  Holland,  and  the 
3d  and  4th  of  our  treaty  with  Sweden,  likevvife  contain  mutu- 
al ftipulations,  that  the  fubjecls  and  citizens  of  the  feveral  par- 
ties fhall  pay  in  the  ports,  havens,  and  places  of  their  refpecl- 
jve  countries,  no  other  or  higher  duties  or  impofts  than  thofe 
which  the  nations  moft  favored  fhall  pay  j  and  that  they  fhall 
enjoy  all  the  rights,  liberties,  privileges,  and  exemptions  in 
trade  and  navigation,  which  the  faid  nations  fhall  enjoy. 


Camillus— No.  XXVII.  169 

2.  The  articles  before  us,  after  ftipulating  that  there  (hall 
be  between  our  territories  and  the  Britith  dominions  in  Europe, 
a  reciprocal  and  perfect  liberty  of  commerce,  declare,  that  the 
fame  (hall  be  fubjeet  always  to  the  laws  of  the  refpettive  coun- 
tries. The  introductory  articles  of  our  treaties  with  France, 
Holland,  and  Sweden,  after  aflerting  the  intentions  of  the  par- 
ties to  take  equality  and  reciprocity  as  their  bafis,  likewife  leave 
each  party  at  liberty  to  form  fuch  regulations  reflecting  com- 
merce and  navigation  as  it  (hall  find  convenient  to  itfelf — and 
the  2d  and  3d  articles  of  our  treaty  with  Pruflia,  after  ftipulat- 
ing the  rights  of  the  parties,  refpecting  the  duties  and  imports, 
and  the  freedom  of  their  navigation  and  trade,  likewife  require 
their  fubmiflion  to  the  laws  and  ufages  eftablifhed  in  the  two 
countries. 

3.  The  articles  before  us,  in  their  provifions  relative  to  na- 
vigation, ftipulate,  as  has  been  already  obferved,  in  common 
with  our  other  treaties,  that  the  (hips  of  the  parties  (hall  not 
be  fubjecr.  to  higher  or  other  duties,  than  thole  paid  by  all  o- 
ther  nations.  They  go  farther,  and  agree  to  vary  this  rule,  fo 
far  as  (hall  be  neceffary  to  equalize  the  tonnage  duty  impofed 
by  the  parties  on  the  ihips  of  each  other.  Our  treaty  with 
France  is  the  only  one  in  which  we  difcover  a  fimilar  ftipulati- 
on. — France  had  a  high  alien  tonnage  duty  on  all  foreign  vef- 
fels  tranfporting  the  merchandize  of  France  from  one  port  to 
another  port  in  her  dominions.  We  had  a  lefs  alien  tonnage 
duty  on  foreign  fhips  employed  in  a  fimilar  trade  :  though  not 
equally  extenlive  ;  the  cafe  is  parallel  to  that  which  exifts  be- 
tween us  and  Great  Britain.  We  have  a  high  alien  tonnage 
duty  on  all  foreign  vefTels  entering  our  ports  ;  Great  Britain 
has  a  lefs  alien  tonnage  duty  on  foreign  vefTels  entering  her 
ports.  In  our  treaty  with  France  we  referve  a  right  to  coun- 
tervail the  alien  tonnage  duty  impofed  by  France;  and  in  like 
manner,  in  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  fhe  referves  a  right 
to  countervail  the  alien  tonnage  duty  impofed  by  us.  The  ob- 
ject, in  both  inftances,  has  been  to  place  the  navigation  of  the 
parties  on  the  footing  of  exact  equality. 

The  preceding  expofition  of  thefe  articles,  illuftrated  by  the 
comparison  of  their  provifions,  with  the  analagous  articles  of 
our  other  treaties,  would  be  fuilicient  to  vindicate  them  againft 
the  objections  to  which  they  have  been  expofed. — It  is,  howe- 
ver, thought  advifeable  to  take  notice  of  fuch  of  thefe  objecti- 
ons as  are  likely  to  have  any  influence  on  the  public  opinion — 
This  will  be  done  in  a  iubfequen?  number. 

CAMILLUS. 


t    «7°    ] 

No.  xxvnr. 

AN  extraordinary  conftru&ion  of  the  laft  claufe  of  the 
fourteenth  article  has  been  ailumed  by  the  writer  of  Ca- 
to  *,  bit  miftake  in  this  inftancei'has  been  the  foundation  of  ma- 
ny of  the  errors  with  which  that  performance  abounds.  The 
article  (lipulates  that  there  fhall  be  a  perfect  and  reciprocal  li- 
berty of  navigation  and  commerce  between  our  territories  and 
thofe  of  Great  Britain  in  Europe,  fubject  a/ways  to  the  laws 
and  ftatutes  of  the  two  countries,  refpectively.  This  naviga- 
tion and  commerce,  fays  Cato,  muft  be  fubje£t  to,  and  defined 
and  regulated  by  the  laws  and  ftatutes  of  the  two  countries, 
which  exifted  at  the  time  of  making  the  treaty,  all  future  laws, 
that  either  party  might  be  difpofed  to  make,  relative  to  the 
fame,  being  excluded. 

The  reafon  affxgned,  in  fupport  of  this  interpretation,  is, 
that  the  article  would  be  nugatory,  did  not  the  laws  and  fta- 
tutes alluded  to,  mean  only  thofe  in  existence  at  the  making 
of  the  treaty  ;  fince  future  Jaws  might  impair  or  deftroy  what 
the  article  confers. 

Nothing  in  the  expreffions  themfelves  requires  this  inter- 
pretation. 

The  cuftomary  and  eftablifhed  meaning  of  them  in  other 
treaties  would  lead  to  a  rejection  of  it. — The  object  of  the 
claufe  is  not  the  limitation  of  the  legislative  power  of  the  par- 
ties, but  the  fubjection  of  their  mutual  navigation  and  com- 
merce to  their  refpeelive  laws. — This  end  is  molt  fully  attain- 
ed by  underftanding  the  parties  to  mean  their  future  as  well  as 
their  cxiftiug  laws.  Befides,  the  interpretation  muft  be  fuch 
as  will  not  deftroy  the  ufe  and  meaning  of  other  parts  of  the 
treaty.  If  this  conftruction  is  juft,  fome  of  the  molt  import- 
ant itipulations  of  the  fifteenth  article  would  really  become 
ufelefs.  For  inftance,  if  the  laws,  exifting  at  the  time  of  making 
t.  treaty,  are  alone  to  prevail,  the  articles  of  commerce,  ad- 
mitted or  excluded  by  thofe  laws,  muft  remain  entitled  to  ad- 
miffion  or  liable  to  e.xclufion.  Why  then  fay  in  the  fifteenth 
article  "  that  no  prohibition  fhall  be  impofed  on  the  exportati- 
on or  importation  of  any  articles  to  or  from  the  territories  of 
the  parties  refpectively,  which  thall  not  extend  to  all  other  na- 
tions." If  a  prohibition,  applying  to  all  foreign  nations,  may 
be  impofed  (as  the  claufe  allows)  this  would  be  a  new  or  fub- 
fequent  law,  varying  the  law  exilting  at  the  time  of  making 
the  treaty,  and  confequently  defeating  the  conftruction  in  ques- 
tion. 


Ca  MILL  us—No.  XXVIII.  i7i 

The  reafon  adduced  by  Cato  to  fupport  his  confiruetion  is 
equally  defective  with  his  interpretation  irfelf.  The  fourteenth 
article  is  in  general  terms,  and  fimilar,  as  has  been  fhown,  to 
the  introductory  articles  of  other  treaties ;  fo  far  from  the  laft 
claufe  thereof  being  capable  of  deltroying  the  preceding  ftipu- 
lations  ;  it  is  the  peculiar  province  of  the  next  article  to  afcer- 
tain  the  points  which  the  parties  mutually  agree  to  except  from 
their  legillative  power.  In  all  cafes  not  thus  excepted,  the  na- 
vigation and  commerce  of  the  parties  is  fubject  to  their  exifting 
or  future  laws. 

It  is  not  neceflary  to  remark  en  the  feveral  objections  which 
have  proceeded  from  the  opinion  that  the  treaty  retrains  us  from 
impofing  prohibitory  duties  and  exclufions  :  they  are  but  fubdi- 
vifions  of  the  error  that  has  been  juft  cornbarted. 

Another  objection  which  has  been  Itated  by  feveral  writers, 
and  much  laboured  by  Cato,  is,  that  under  the  right  referved 
to  the  Britifh  government  to  countervail  an  alien  tonnage  duty, 
by  the  impofition  of  an  equivalent  one  on  our  veilels  entering 
their  ports,  they  would  gain  and  we  fhould  lofe. 

Several  methods  are  adopted  to  prove  this  opinion.  The  ob- 
fervation  that  we  have  a  tonnage  duty  on  our  own  veflels,  and 
that  Great  Britain  has  none,  is  repeated  by  way  of  objection 
againfk  this  as  well  as  againft  the  propofed  adjuftment  contain- 
ed in  the  12th  article.  The  fame  reply  already  given  might 
be  fufficient  in  this  place. 

But  is  it  true  that  Britifh  fliips  entering  their  own  ports  in 
Europe  are  wholly  free  from  a  tonnage  duty  ?  the  contrary  is 
the  fact ;  fince  it  is  underitood,  that  they  pay  a  tonnage  duty  for 
the  fupport  of  light  houfes,  and  fome  other  inltitutions,  con- 
nected with  their  navigation,  which,  in  all  their  ports,  exceeds 
the  tonnage  duty  of  fix  cents  per  ton,  that  we  levy  on  the  en- 
try of  our  own  veflels  employed  in  foreign  trade.  But  Great 
Britain  (it  is  alleged)  will  not  only  impofe  in  virtue  of  this  re- 
ferved right,  fifty  cents  per  ton  on  our  veflels  entering  her 
ports,  but  in  every  port  except  that  of  London,  fhe  will  further- 
more exact  one  (hilling  and  nine  pence  fterling,  or  thirty  nine 
cents  per  ton,  for  light  money  and  Trinity-dues  more  than  is 
paid  by  her  own  veflels  •,  this,  added  to  the  difference  before 
itated,  would  have,  it  is  faid,  a  very  difcotiraging  effect  upon 
our  navigation.  Our  tonnage  duty  is  a  tax  not  divided  and 
appropriated,  like  the  light  money,  or  Trinity-dues,  in  Great 
Britain,  to  fpecific,  and  particular  objects — but  when  levied, 
goes  into  the  treafury  with  the  duty  of  import,  and  ftands  ap- 
propriated to  the  various  objects  to  which  that  duty  is  appropri- 
ated— among  thofe  objects  is  the  fupport  of  light-houfes — it  is 


172  Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXVIII 

not  the  object  to  which  the  tax  is  applied  that  gives  a  denomi- 
nation ;  whether  it  goes  to  fupport  the  civil  lift,  or  to  pay  an- 
nuities, or  to  maintain  light  houfes,  or  to  fupport  hofpitals, 
it  is  equally  a  tonnage  duty.  A  tonnage  duty  then  of  a  cer- 
tain amount,  is  now  paid  by  American  veffels  entering  the 
ports  of  Great  Britain.  This  duty  is  not  uniform,  being  lefs 
in  London  than  in  the  other  ports,  and,  in  fome  inftances, 
lefs  than  the  tonnage  duty  paid  by  Britifh  fhips  entering  our 
ports — The  object  of  this  claufe  (8th  of  the  15th  article)  is  to 
equalize  the  alien  tonnage  duties  of  the  parties.  Hence  the 
refervation  of  a  right  to  the  Britifh  government,  to  impofe  on 
our  veffels  entering  their  ports  in  Europe,  a  tonnage  duty 
equal  to  that  which  fhall  be  payable  by  Britifh  veffels  in  our 
ports.  It  would  be  againft  the  manifeft  views  of  the  parties 
as  well  as  againft  the  explicit  terms  of  the  article,  to  impofe 
a  tonnage  duty  (whether  for  light  money,  Trinity  dues,  or  any 
other  purpofe)  which  fhould  exceed  that  which  fhall  be  paya- 
ble by  Britifh  veffels  in  our  ports. 

The  right  referved  is  exprefsly  to  impofe  on  our  veffels  an 
equal,  not  a  greater  tonnage  duty  than  we  fhall  impofe  on  their 
veffels.     This  objection,  therefore,  muft  be  abandoned. 

But  again,  it  is  urged,  that  our  navigation,  fhould  it  wea- 
Scylla,  muft  perifh  on  Charybdis:  for  we  are  gravely  told  by 
Cato,  that  under  the  right  referved  to  the  Britifh  government 
to  impofe  fuch  duty  as  may  be  fufficient  to  countervail,  or, 
which  is  equivalent,  to  balance  the  difference  of  duty  payable 
on  the  importation  into  our  ports  of  Afiatic  or  European  goods 
by  American  or  by  Britifh  veffels,  our  fhips  will  be  thrown  out 
of  the  trade  with  the  Britifh  European  dominions  ;  becaufe  un- 
der this  right,  the  Britifh  government  will  impofe  a  duty  on  our 
productions  carried  to  their  ports  in  our  own  fhips,  equal  to 
the  whole  duty  payable  on  the  goods  and  merchandizes  import- 
ed into  our  ports  by  Britifh  fhips ;  and  as  the  goods  and 
merchandizes  which  we  receive  from  them  exceed  in  value  thofe 
that  they  receive  from  us  by  one-third,  and  as  the  duty  to  be 
countervailed  is  at  leaft  ten  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  the  goods 
received  from  them,  the  confequence  will  be,  that  the  counter- 
vailing duty  mult  amount  to  fifteen  per  cent,  on  the  value  of 
all  our  productions  carried  in  our  own  fhips  to  the  Britifh  ports 
in  Europe,  while  the  fame  will  be  free  in  Britifh  fhips.  A  more 
extravagant  conllruction,*  or  an  argument  more  inaccurately 
formed  can  fcarccly  be  imagined. 

•  If  I  miftake  not,  the  affertion  of  Cato,  as  to  the  whole  duty,  has  been  retract- 
ed; but  the  reiidue  of  his  error  on  this  point  rjmuias  unrecalled. 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXVIIL  173 

The  countervailing  right  is  not  applicable  to  the  whole  duty 

!)  lyable  on  goods  and  merchandizes  imported  into  our  ports  m 
iritilh  flii ps,  but  exprefsly  confined  to  the  difference  of*  duty 
now  payable  on  the  fame  when  imported  by  America a  or  by 
Britiih  veflels — This  difference  is  one-tenth  part  of  the  duty 
upon  all    European   goods,  that  is  to  fay,  thefe  goi  o\:c- 

tcntli  part  more  duty  when  imported  in  Britiih  vefleJs  than  is 
paid  on  the  fame  when  imported  in  an  American  veffel  i  in  all 
cafes,  therefore,  where  our  import  is  ten  per  cent,  a'.!  valorem,, 
the  difference  of  duty  to  be  countervailed  amounts  to  cniy  one 
per  cent,  on  the  value  of  the  goods,  inilead  of  ten  per  cent,  as 
is  alleged  by  Cato  ;  in  the  inltance  of  teas  imported  from  Eu- 
rope the  difference  is  greater:  again  it  is  not  an  aggregate  fum, 
that  is  to  be  apportioned  under  this  countervailing  right,  for 
this  fum  would  be  liable  to  conftant  variation  according  to  the 
quantity  and  fpecies  of  gopds  imported  into,  our  ports  from  time 
to  time  by  Britiih  veflfels  \  and  betides,  the  Bnnlh  government 
poiiefs  no  means  whereby  the  amount  thereof  could  be  aieer- 
tained. 

Cato  feels  and  admits  the  force  of  thefe  remarks  as  decifive 
againit  an  average  duty,  without  perceiving  that  they  pofTefs  equal 
flrength  againit  his  project  of  countervailing  the  whole  duty 
paid  on  the  importation  of  goods  ami  merchandises  into  our 
ports  by  Britiih  veflels  ;  for  the  fame  variation  in  the  amount, 
and  the  fame  want  of  the  means  to  afcertain  it,  will  operate  in 
both  cafes.  The  reaiV.ns  which  he  himfelf  employs  to  prove 
that  an  average  duty  cannot  be  ascertained,  equally  fhow  the 
impracticability  of  the  method  which  he  confiders  as  the  one 
that  will  be  employed  in  the  execution  of  the  countervailing 
right  referved  10  the  Britifh  government.  It  has  before  been 
fratcd,  that  the  natural  as  well  as  the  equitable  mode  of  exe- 
cuting tins  power  will  be  to  impofe  a  duty  on  the  goods  im- 
ported by  us  from  their  European  ports  exactly  the  fame  as 
makes  the  difference  of  duty  on  the  importation  thereof  into 
our  ports  by  American  or  by  Britifh  veflels. 

Admitting  that  the  execution  of  the  countervailing  right 
referved  to  Great  Britain  will  do  no  more  than  place  the  navi- 
gation of  tire  parries  ou  an  equal  footing  in  their  mutual  inter- 
courfe,  (till  we  are  told  that  for  this,  likewife,  the  treaty  is 
blameable,  becaufe  even  equality  will  be  fuch  an  advantage  to 
our  rival,   that  we  fliall  be  unable  to  maintain  the  competition. 

This  objection  brings  with  it  a  quality  rarely  to  be  difcovered 
in  the  opinions  of  the  cavillers  againit  the  treaty.  Their  ufual 
error  is  a  falfe  and  magnified  eitimate  of  the  comparative  re- 
fources,  flrength  and  importance  of  our  country  ;  in  this  inflance, 

Vol.  III.  B  b 


174  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXVIII. 

fluffing  their  ground,  they  fall  into  (the  oppofitc  extreme,  and 
contend  for  our  inferiority  in  a  branch  of  bufinefs  in  the  pro- 
fecution  of  which,  we  are  unquellionably  able  to  meet  a  fair 
competition  with  any  nation. 

With  what  propriety  could  we  have  propofed  or  expected  an 
adjustment  of  our  intercourfe  by  which  our  veffels  fliould  have 
been  placed  on  a  better  footing  than  thofe  of  the  other  party  ? 
As  the  trade  was  mutually  beneficial,  why  could  we,  more  than 
Great  Britain,  aik  for  an  arrangement  that  fhould  fubject  our 
rival  to  comparatively  heavier  burdens  ?  Does  any  confiderate 
man  believe,  that  it  would  have  been  proper  for  us  to  afk,  or 
that  there  is  the  lead  probability  that  Great  Britain  would  have 
acceded  to,  an  arrangement  on  the  fubject  of  our  mutual  na- 
vigation, that  fliould  have  fecured  to  us  advantages  denied  to 
them  ?  To  place  the  navigation  of  the  parties  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing, was  all  that  could  be  rationally  expected  by  either — and  fo 
far  from  fuch  a  fettlement  being  injurious  to  us,  the  contrary 

has  Jong  been  the  opinion  both  here  and  in  Great  Britain. 

If  it  is  true,  that  we  are  unable  to  maintain  a  competition  with 
the  Britifli  navigation,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  jealoufy 
that  is  underftood  to  have  fhown  itfelf  on  their  part  on  this 
fubject? 

But  the  fact  is  otherwife — Britifh  fhips  cannot  be  built  and 
equipped  as  cheap  as  American  fhips,  nor  are  they  victualled 
and  manned*  on  as  good  terms.  Our  country  abounds  with 
excellent  materials  for  (hip-building.  Great  Britain  is  in  a  great 
meafure  dependent  upon  other  countries  for  a  fupply  of  them. 
The  materials  for  the  construction  of  fhips  are  much  cheaper 
in  America  than   in  Great  Britain;  and   intelligent  characters 

in  Great  Britain  as  well  as  in  America  have  affirmed,  that  an 
American  merchant  (hip  of  any  given  burden,  can  be  built  and 
equipped  for  fea   one-third   cheaper  than  a   Britifh,  Dutch,  or 

French  (hip  of  equal  goodnefs.  Mr.  Coxe  informs  us,  that  the 
coft  of  an  American  (hip,  built  of  our  live  oak  and  cedar,  is 
from  36  to  38  dollars  per  ton,  completely  finifhed  ;  while  an 
oak  ihip  in  the  cheapeft  part  of  England,  France,  or  Holland, 
fitted  in  the  fame  manner,  will  coit  from  55  to  60  dollars  per 
ton.  The  capital  employed  on  the  American  merchantmen  is 
therefore  one-third  lefs  on  any  given  amount  of  tonnage  than 
that  employed  in  the  fame  amount  of  Britifli  tonnage  ;  or 
the   money  requifife  to  build   and  equip  for   fea  two    Britifli 

•  In  the  companion  in  this  particular,  we  muft  combine  the  number  of  hands 
with  the  terms,  of  computation  according  to  which  the  veffels  of  the  two  coun- 
tric  are  navigated. 


Ca  m  i  l  l  u  s— No.  XXVIII.  1 75 

merchant  fhips,  will  be  fufficient  to  build  and  equip  for  fea 
three  American  merchant  (hips  of  the  fame  burden  and  of 
equal  goodnefs.  It  is  not  only  the  difference  in  the  firft  coll,  but 
to  this  mould  be  added  the  difference  of  interefr.  and  infurance, 
the  annual  amount  whereof. is  afcertained  by  the  value  of  the 
fhips. 

If  we  add  to  this,  the  comparative  advantages  that  we  pof- 
fefs  in  victualling  and  manning  our  veffels,  independent  of  the 
acknowledged  and  diftinguifhed  fkill  and  enterprize  of  our  fea- 
men,  it  may  be  fafely  affirmed,  that  no  American  who  knows 
the  character  of  his  countrymen,  and  who  is  not  ignorant 
of  our  peculiar  refources  for  (hip-building,  will  doubt  our 
fuperiority  in  an  equal  and  fair  competition  with  any  other 
nation. 

It  is  further  alleged,  that  the  treaty  wants  reciprocity,  inas- 
much as  the  whole  territory  of  the  United  States  is  laid  open 
to  the  Britifh  navigation  and  commerce,  while,  in  return,  the 
Britifh  territories,  /'/;  F.urcpe  only,  arc  opened  to  us.  The  fhort 
anfwer  to  this  allegation  is,  that  it  is  not  true. — All  the  Bri- 
tifh territories  in  Europe  are  laid  open  to  us;  all  their  territories 
in  Aha  are  alfo  opened  to  us  ;  the  treaty  likewife  opened  all 
their  territories  in  the  Weft  Indies.  The  article  relative  to  this 
branch  of  trade,  as  has  already  been  obferved,  is  excepted  from 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  and  made  the  fubjcot  of  future 
negociation.  The  Britifh  territories  on  our  continent,  that  of 
the  Hudfon's  Bay  company  excepted,  are  alfo  opened  to  us  in 
like  manner  as  ours  are  opened  to  them.  The  intercourfe  is  con- 
fined on  both  fides  to  the  interior  communications,  the  inha- 
bitants nf  thofe  colonies  being  equally  deftitute  of  a  right  to 
refort,  by  fea,  with  their  fhips  to  our  ports  and  harbours  as  we 
are  of  the  right  to  refort,  by  fea,  with  our  fhips  to  their  ports 
and  harbours. 

The  territory  of  the  Hudfon's  Bay  company,  the  ifland  of 
Newfoundland  and  the  eftablifhments  on  the  coaft  of  Africa, 
are  the  only  Britifh  dominions  to  which  the  treaty,  in  its  origi- 
nal form  does  not  give  a  right  of  intercourfe  and  trade. 

The  fettlement  in  the  Bay  of  Honduras  is  onSpanifh  lands, 
and  the  right  of  precedence  is  conceded  for  fpecitied  objects, 
beyond  which  the  Spanifh  government  are  vigilant  to  reuYain 
the  fettlers. 

Spain  may  pefftbly  be  induced  to  allow  us  a  right  in  common 
with  Great  Britain,  to  cut  mahogany  and  die  woods  in  this 
region  \  but  Great  Britain  cannot,  confiftently  with  her  con- 
vention with  Spain,  ihare  with  us  the  privilege  that  (he  enjoy?* 


176  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXVIII. 

Newfoundland  is  a  mere  eftablifhment  for  the  Britifh  fifheries. 
The  African  trade  has  been,  and  might  hereafter  be  purfued, 
if  our  humanity  and  the  force  of  public  opinion  did  not  im- 
pede it,  without  procuring  a  right  to  reiprt  to  the  Britifh  ports 
in  that  quarter;  and  in  refpect  to  the  unfettled  territory  of  the 
Hudfon's  Bay  company,  about  which  fo  much  has  been  noticed 
and  written,  it  is  of  no  fort  of  importance,  except  in  a  i'mall 
Indian  trade  that  employs  two  or  three  annual  fhips  which  ar- 
rive there  in  Augult,  and  efcape  in  September;  befides,  that 
this  trade  belongs  to  a  company  who  poffefs  a  right  to  the  ex- 
clufive  enjoyment  of  it  even  again  ft  their  fellow  citizens.  It  is 
finally  alleged  that  the  treaty  will  bind  up  and  reftrain  our  go- 
gernment  from  making  more  fpecific  and  beneficial  treaties  of 
commerce  with  other  nations. 

Thofe  who  urge  this  objection,  have  generally  placed  great 
reliance  on  another  objection,  which  aflerts  that  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  violates  the  conflitution,  becaufe  it  amounts  to  a 
regulation  of  commerce,  the  power  to  regulate  which  is  vefted 
in  congrefs  and  not  in  the  executive. — Yet  thefe  very  charac- 
ters, in  the  next  breath,  maintain  that  the  treaty  is  bad,  be- 
caufe it  precludes  our  executive  government,  (for  no  other 
power  can  make  treaties)  from  making  more  minute  and  benefi- 
cial commercial  treaties  with  other  nations. — If  thefe  obferva- 
tions  can  be  reconciled,  it  rnuft  be  thus— The  conltitution  does 
not  authorize  the  executive,  with  the  aid  of  the  fenate,  to 
make  a  commercial  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  having  veiled 
in  congrefs  the  power  to  regulate  the  trade  between  us  and  that 
nation  ;  but  it  allows  the  executive  to  make  commercial  treaties 
with  any  other  nation,  which  may  eftablifh  the  molt  material 
and  minute  commercial  and  revenue  laws,  without  affecting 
the  power  veiled  in  congrefs  to  regulate  trade. — That  we  may 
have  characters  among  us  fufficiently  intemperate  to  wilh  that 
fuch  was  the  conltitution,  I  am  not  prepared  to  deny; — but 
that  fuch  a  conftrucftion  can  be  made  out,  yet  remains  to  be 
proved. 

The  objection,  as  ufual,  is  made  in  a  loofe  and  inaccurate 
manner;  literally  interpreted,  we  fhould  infer  that  the  treaty 
contained  an  article,  whereby  we  had  agreed  with  Great  Bri- 
tain, that  we  would  not  form  any  future  treaties  of  commerce 
with  any  nation:   But  no  fuch  ftipulafion  exifts. 

Is  it  meant  by  the  objection  to  be  alleged,  that  we  can  form 
no  commercial  treaty,  whereby  for  an  advantage  yielded  on 
our  part,  we  may  acquire  a  privilege  in  return,  unlefs  we  yield 
the  fame  advantage  to  Great  Britain  gv.ituitoufly  and  without 
receiving  from  her  the  ecjuivaleut  ? 


Ca  mill  us— No.  XXVIII.  177 

Admitting  the  truth  of  this  objection,  it  might  be  replied: 
So  on  the  other  hand,  Great  Britain  can  form  no  commercial 
treaty,  whereby,  for  an  advantage  yielded  on  her  part,  ihe  may 
acquire  fome  privilege  in  return,  unlets  (he  yields  the  fame 
advantage  to  us  gratuitoufly  and  without  receiving  from  us  the 
equivalent;  and  as  Great  Britain,  whofe  commercial  relations 
are  equally  extenfive  with  ours,  and  whole  capital  far  exceeds 
ours,  is  equally  reilrained  on  this  point,  our  chance  ot  gain 
would  be  fully  equal  to  our  chance  of  lofs. 

But  the  allegation  is  not  generally  true,  and  the  objection, 
when  examined,  will  be  found  to  be  of  little  weight,  even 
with  thofe  who  may  imagine  that  nations  do  fometimes  make 
good  bargains  by  the  purchafe  of  privileges  and  exemptions  in 
their  foreign  trade.  The  cafe  that  has  been  chofen  to  enforce 
the  objection,  ihall  be  employed  to  invalidate  it. 

Admit  that  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  is  in  operation — 
that  the  oil  and  provifion  merchants  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  wine  and  brandy  merchants  of  France  are  delirous  of  a 
treaty  between  the  two  countries,  whereby  thofe  commodities 
fhall  be  received  from  each  other  on  low  duties  or  freely — ad- 
mit farther,  that  the  governments  of  the  two  nations  are  dif- 
pofed  to  make  fuch  a  treaty  .this  is  the  cafe  again  put  by  the 
oppofers  of  the  treaty  as  impracticable)  what  will  rettrain  the 
concluHon  of  this  treaty  ?  The  difadvantage  that  will  arife  from 
our  treaty  with  Great  Britain  ?  No,  fur  Britain  produces  nei- 
ther wines,  nor  brandy  made  from  wines,  with  which  Ihe  could 
fupply  us  ;  (he  therefore  could  gain  nothing,  nor  (hould  we 
lofe  any  thing  by  the  conclufion  of  fuch  a  treaty.  All  that  will 
be  requifite,  therefore,  in  the  formation  of  fuch  treaties,  will 
be  to  choofe  for  the  purpofe  fuch  articles  of  the  growth,  manu- 
facture, or  produce  of  any  country  with  whom  we  delire  to 
treat  as  are  not  common  to  it  and  the  Britifh  dominions,  and 
any  ikilful  merchant  will  quickly  make  the  feledtiou — Hence 
it  appears  that  the  objection  is  not  well  founded  in  point  of 
fact. 

But  though  it  may  be  practicable,  will  it  be  politic  in  us  to 
conclude  no  commercial  treaties  of  this  character  with  any  na- 
tion ?  If  we  refort  to  precedents  as  guides,  we  Ihall  difcover 
few,  the  hiftory  of  which  wouid  encourage  us.  Indeed  they 
are  a  defcription  of  conventions  not  often  formed  between  na- 
tions. 

They  are  of  difficult  adjuftment,  and  necefTarily  increafe  the 
provifions  of  the  commercial  code,  lufficiently  intricate,  when 
only  one  rule  prevail;)  in  relpcct  to  all  nations.  Belides,  how- 
ever perfect  may  be  the  right  of  nations  in  this  refpcCt,  yet 


178  Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXVIII. 

when  the  productions  of  one  nation  are  received  at  lower  du- 
ties, than  the  like  productions  of  another,  the  difcrimination 
will  fcarcely  fail  to  awaken  defires  and  to  produce  difiatisfac- 
tion  from  their  difappointment. 

Again,  unlefs  we  are  prepared,  at  the  expenfe  of  the  whole 
to  procure  advantages  or  privileges  for  a  part  of  the  community, 
we  (hall  doubt  the  policy  of  fuch  ftipulations.  Between  two  ma- 
nufacturing nations,  in  each  of  which  the  manufactures  have 
attained  to  great  perfection — a  tariff  of  duties  may  be  efta- 
blifhed  by  treaties,  in  the  payment  of  which  the  manufactures 
of  the  two  countries  might  be  freely  exchanged  and  mutually 
confirmed  ;  fuch  was  the  commercial  treaty  between  France 
and  Great  Britain  in  the  year  1786.  But  the  fubject  was  fo 
intricate  and  involved  fuch  a  variety  of  apparently  independent 
circumftances,  fuch  as  the  price  of  provifions,  the  amount  and 
the  manner  of  levying  of  the  taxes,  and  the  price  of  the  raw 
materials  employed  in  their  refpective  manufactures,  that  nei- 
ther part  felt  entire  confidence  in  the  equity  and  reciprocity  of 
the  treaty  :  and  with  all  the  (kill  in  negociation,  that  France 
in  a  fuperior  degree  has  been  fuppofed  to  have  poffeffed,  the 
opinion  of  that  nation  has  finally  been,  that  the  treaty  was  bur- 
denfome  and  difadvantageous  to  them. 

We  have  another  fpecimen  of  this  fpecies  of  treaty  in  a  fhort 
convention  between  England  and  Portugal,  concluded  in  1703 — 
the  object  was  to  procure  a  favorable  market  for  diffimilar  com- 
modities, and  fuch  as  were  not  the  common  production  of  the 
two  countries.  But  this  treaty,  which  has  been  fo  much  applaud- 
ed, is  eflentially  defective  in  point  of  reciprocity.  England  agrees 
to  admit  the  wine  of  Portugal  on  payment  of  two-thirds  of  the 
duty  that  fliall  be  payable  on  French  wines — and  in  return,  Por- 
tugal agrees  not  to  prohibit  the  Englifh  woollens.  She  does  not 
agree  to  receive  them  exclufively  of  the  woollens  of  other  coun- 
tries, nor  to  admit  them  on  payment  of  lower  duties.  The  ad- 
vantage therefore  is  manifeftly  on  the  fide  of  Portugal.  By  the 
treaty  of  commerce  between  France  and  Great  Britain,  con- 
cluded in  1786,  it  was  agreed,  that  the  wines  of  France  im- 
ported into  Great  Britain  iliould  pay  no  higher  duties  than  thofe 
which  the  wines  of  Portugal  then  paid:  The  confequence  mud 
have  been  a  reduction,  without  compenfation  or  equivalent 
from  Portugal,  of  the  exiiling  duties  on  the  wines  of  that 
country  brought  into  Great  Britain,  equal  to  one-third  of  the 
amount  of  fuch  duties.  This  is  an  inltance  of  inconvenience 
and  lofi;,  refulting  from  the  fpecies  of  treaties,  which  it  is 
alleged  as  an  objection  to  the  treaty  concluded  between  us  and 


Ca mill  us — No.  XXVIII.  179 

Great  Britain,  that  we  are  prevented  by  it  from  making  with 
other  nations. 

A  fmall  compact  nation,  likewife,  who  excel  in  fome  one  fpe- 
cies  of  manufacture,  that  is  eitablifhed  throughout  their  ter- 
ritory, and  in  the  conducting  and  fuccefs  whereof  there  is  a 
common  intereft,  may  find  it  ufeiul  to  procure  the  exclufive 
fupply  of  fome  foreign  market  :  provided,  in  this  as  in  all 
other  bargains,  the  compenfation  fhall  not  be  too  high.  But  in 
a  nation  like  ours,  compoled  of  different  ftatcs,  varying  in  cli- 
mate, productions,  manufactures,  and  commercial  purfuits,  it 
will  be  more  difficult  to  enter  into  treaties  of  this  kind.  Should 
Great  Britain,  for  example,  be  inclined  to  admit  our  fifh-oils 
freely,  or  on  payment  of  low  duties  on  condition  that  we  would 
receive  their  woollens  or  hardware  freely  or  on  payment  of 
low  duties — would  the  middle  and  fouthern  ftates  be  fatisfied 
with  fuch  a  treaty  ? — would  they  agree  to  a  tax  on  their  eflates 
fufficient  to  fupply  the  deficiency  in  the  revenue  arifing  from 
the  relinquishment  of  the  impoit  on  Britifh  woollens  or  hard- 
ware ?  Would  it  not  be  faid,  that  fuch  a  tax  was  a  bounty  out 
of  the  common  treafury,  on  a  particular  branch  of  bufinefs 
purfued  alone  by  a  portion  of  the  citizens  of  a  fingle  ftate  in 
the  union  ?  Inftances  might  be  multiplied  in  the  illuftration  of 
this  fubjcct  5  but  they  will  readily  occur  to  every  man  who  will 
purfue  a  little  detail  in  his  reflections.  We  have  once  made  an 
experiment  of  this  kind — its  fate  ihould  ferve  as  a  caution  to  us 
in  future.  By  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  articles  of  our  treaty 
with  France,  it  was  agreed,  that  France  fliould  never  impofe 
any  duty  on  the  melafles  that  we  fhould  export  from  the  French 
Weil  Indies;  and  in  compenfation  of  this  exemption,  that  w6 
fhould  never  impofe  any  duty  on  the  exportation  of  any  kind 
of  merchandize  by  Frenchmen,  from  our  territories,  for  the 
ufe  of  the  French  Welt  Indies.  Thefe  articles  produced  much 
difTatisfaclion  in  congrefs :  It  was  laid  to  be  a  benefit  that 
would  enure  to  the  ufe  and  advantage  of  only  a  part,  but  which 
mult  be  compenfated  by  the  whole.  Thofe  arguments  which 
will  fhow  themfelves  in  future,  ihould  fimilar  conventions  be 
formed,  were  difplayed  on  this  occafion.  The  treaty  was  rati- 
fied, congrefs  applied  to  the  king  of  France  to  confent  to  annul 
thefe  articles — this  requeft  was  granted — and  the  articles  were, 
by  the  feveral  acts  of  the  parties,  annulled, 

Not  only  the  few  inftances  of  the  exillence  of  thefe  treaties 

I  among  the  nations,  added  to  the  peculiar  difficulties  which  we 

mult  meet  in  their  formation,  fhould  lead  us  to  doubt   their 

utility,  but  alfo  the  opinion  of  our  own  country,  which,  if  ex.- 


i8»  CamiLlus — No.  XXIX. 

plicir  on  any  point,  has  been  repeatedly  fo  in  the  condemnation 
of  this  fpccies  of  national  compact. 

The  introductory  article  of  our  commercial  treaty  with 
Fra.-ce,  afferts,  that  the  parties  willing  to  fix  on  an  equitable 
and  permanent  manner,  the  rules  which  ought  to  be  followed 
relative  to  their  cor refpo Defence  and  commerce  "  have  judged 
that  the  faid  end  could  not  be  better  obtained,  than  by  taking 
for  the  bafis  of  their  agreement  the  moft  perfe£l  equality  and 
reciprocity,  and  by  carefully  avoiding  all  thofe  burden  fome  pre- 
ferences which  are  ufually  fources  of  debate,  embarraflment  and 
difcontent." 

The  fame  language  is  employed  in  our  fubfequent  treaties 
with  Holland  and  with  Sweden  ;  the  public  voice  is  unequivo- 
cal on  this  fubjecl. 

On  the  whole,  the  more  clofely  this  queftion  is  examined, 
the  more  doubtful  will  the  policy  appear  of  our  entering  into 
treaties  of  this  defcription.  We  fhall  have  to  encounter  not 
only  the  intrinfic  difficulties  thac  always  attend  a  fair  and  precife 
adjuflment  of  the  equivalents,  together  with  the.  national  dis- 
contents that  proceed  fromerrorson  this  point;  but  moreover  a 
Hill  greater  embarraffment  from  the  circumftance  that  our 
great  ilaple  exports  are  not  the  common  productions  of  the 
whole  union,  but  different  articles  are  peculiar  to  different  parts 
thereof.  If,  notwithstanding,  our  government  fhall  difcover  an 
inltance  in  which,  confident  with  the  common  intereft  and  found 
policy,  fuch  a  treaty  might  be  defirable,  we  have  fcope  fuffi- 
cient  to  form  it  without  'incurring  lofs  or  difadvantage  by  the 
operation  of  our  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 

CAMILLUS. 


No.  XXIX. 


TH  E  fixtecnth  article  is  entirely  conformable  to  the  ufage 
and  cullom  of  nations.  The  exchange  of  confuls  had 
already  taken  place  between  us  and  Great  Britain  ;  and  their 
functions  and  privileges  being  left  to  rjie  definition  of  the  law 
of  nations,  we  fhall  be  exempt  from  thofe  unpleafant  contro- 
verfies  that  too  often  arife  from  fpecial  conventions,  which 
enlarge  the  confular  privileges,  power,  and  jurifdiclion. 

The  agreement  that  either  party  may  punifh,  difmifs,  or 
fend  back  a  conful  for  illegal  or  improper  conduct,  is  calculated 
to  prevent  national  mifunderitandings,  and  to  fecure  a  refptct- 


Ca MIL!. US— No.  XXIX.  i8t 

iai  deportment  in  the  confular  corps.  I  have  not  ohferved  that 
this  article  has  been  difapprovcd  of  from  any  quarter. 

The  feventeenth  article  which  rcfpctU  the  capture  arid  deten- 
tion of  the  vellels  of  the  parties  on  jull  fufpiciort  of  having  on 
beard  enemy's  property,  or  contraband  of  War,  has  been  the 
object  of  intemperate  cenlure— with  how  much  jultice  il  thai  I 
be  the  bufinefs  of  this  paper  to  examine. 

The  principal  complaint,  is  nor,  that  the  article  expofed  out* 
own  property  to  lofs  by  capture,  for  this  is  not  the  cue,  but 
that  it  doss  not  protect  enemy's  property  on  board  out  vcffels. 
The  defence  of  the  article  will  roll  upon  the  proofs  which  fhall 
be  exhibited,  that  it  is  in  conformity  with,  and  fupported  by, 
the  clear  and  acknowledged  law  of  nations — that  law  which 
pronounces  that  enemy's  goods  on  the  high  feas  are  liable  to 
capture,  and  as  a  necefiary  mean  to  this  end,  that  neutral  ihips 
are  there  liable  to  examination  or  fearch. 

The  law  of  nature  (as  heretofore  obfefved)  applicable  to  in- 
dividuals in  their  independent  or  unfocial  Hate,  is  what,  when 
applied  to  collections  of  individuals  in  fociety,  conftitutes  the 
natural  or  necefiary  law  of  nations.  An  individual  in  a  ftate  of 
nature,  for  reparation  of  injuries,  or  in  defence  of  his  perfon 
and  property,  has  a  right  to  feize  the  property  of  his  enemy, 
and  to  deftroy  his  perfon. 

Nations  always  fucceed  to  the  rights  that  the  individuals  who 
competed  them  enjoyed  in  a  itate  of  nature:  and  hence  it  is 
that  by  the  law  of  nations,  from  the  carliett  annals  of  fociety, 
the  goods  or  property  of  one  enemy  has  been  confidered  as 
liable  to  be  fei'/ed  and  applied  to  the  ufe  of  another.  This  right 
mutt  be  fo  ufed  as  not  to  injure  the  rights  of  others:  Subject 
to  this  limitation,  it  is  perfect,  and  an  interruption  of  it  by 
another  is  an  injury.  As  in  a  conteft  between  two  individual 
in  a  ltate  of  nature,  no  third  has  a  right,  without  becoming  a 
party  in  the  controvetfy,  to  protect  the  property,  or  defend  the 
.perfon  of  either  of  the  parties:  So  in  a  war  between  two  na- 
tions no  third  nation  can  act  out  of  its  own  jurifdiction,  con- 
fiftent  with  the  duties  of  neutrality  ;  or,  without  becoming  a 
party  in  the  war,  protect,  the  property  of,  or  defend  either  of 
the  parties.  Though  nations  are,  in  refpect  to  each  other,  like 
individuals  in  a  ftate-of  nature,  the  refemblanee  is  not  in  every 
particular  perfecf .—individuals  in  a  ttate  of  nature  have  not 
only  the  inferior  dominion  or  private  ownership  of  property, 
but  the  entire  and  perfect  dominion  over  it.  In  fociety  the  lat- 
ter right  belongs  excluflvely  to  the  nation,  while  the  former 
belongs  to  the  feveral  members  that  compofe  it.  Immoveable 
things,    fuch    as    lands,   which   are   denominated    the  territory 

Vol.  111.  C  c 


1 82  Camillus— No.  XXIX. 

of  a  nation,  are  the  immediate  and  fpecial  objects  of  this  per- 
fect dominion  or  paramount  property.  Moveable  things  are  the 
proper  objects  of  inferior  dominion  or  private  ownership,  and 
are  no  otherwife  the  objects  of  the  national  or  paramount  pro- 
perty than  as  they  happen  to  be  within  its  territorial  hmicb.  The 
perfect  dominion,  or  jurifdiction  of  a  nation,  in  refpect  to  pro- 
perty, extends  over,  and  is  bounded  by,  the  lands  thereof  and 
the  waters  appurtenant  to  the  fame. 

As  foon,  therefore,  as  moveable  things  pafs  out  of  thefe 
limits,  they  ceafe  to  be  under  the  dominion  or  jurifdiction  of 
the  nation,  the  private  property  of  whofe  members  they  may  be. 

This  private  property,  in  moveable  things,  may  be  enjoyed 
within  the  territory  of  a  nation,  by  thofe  who  are  not  mem- 
bers thereof.  Hence  in  a  war  between  two  nations,  a  member 
of  one  of  which  owns  moveables  within  the  territory  of  a  third 
or  neutral  nation,  fuch  moveables  or  property  are  not  liable  to 
feizure  by  reafon  of  the  war;  becaufe,  being  within  and  under 
the  exclufive  jurifdiction  of  a  third  nation,  it  would  be  an 
injury  to  the  right  of  fuch  nation  to  go  there  and  feize  the  fame. 
So  long  as  fuch  moveables  remain  within  a  foreign  territory, 
they  are  objects  of  its  dominion  and  protection;  but  as  foon  as 
they  are  carried  out  of  the  fame,  they  ceafe  to  be  any  longer 
under  its  jurifdiction  or  protection. 

In  a  war  between  two  nations,  all  the  members  of  each 
are  enemies  to  the  other,  and  all  the  property  of  the  feveral 
members,  as  well  as  the  ftrictly  national  property,  is  liable  to 
feizure.  In  general  the  character  of  the  owner,  whether  ene- 
my or  friend,  decides  whether  property  is  liable  to  capture  by 
reafon  of  war  ;  but  the  validity  of  the  capture  depends  not  only 
on  the  goods  being  enemy's  property,  but  likewife  on  the  fact 
that  the  place  of  capture  is  one  in  which  the  right  may  be  ex- 
ercifed  without  injury  to  the  rights  of  a  neutral  nation.  Hence 
the  property  of  an  enemy  is  liable  to  capture  only  within  the 
refpective  territories  or  jurifdiction  of  the  belligerent  nations,  or 
in  a  place  not  within  the  territory  or  jurifdiction  of  any  nation. 
In  either  of  thefe  places  the  right  may  be  exercifed  without 
injury  to  the  rights  of  neutral  nations — The  limitation  of  this 
right,  lb  far  as  refpects  enemy's  property  found  within  the 
territory  of  one  of  the  parties  on  the  breaking  out  of  war,  has 
before  been  difcufled  and  placed,  I  flatter  myfelf,  on  folid  prin- 
ciples. 

The  main  ocean  not  being  within  the  territory,  or  fubject 
to  the  exchifive  dominion  of  any  nation,  is  a  place,  where 
enemy  goods  may  lav/fully   be  captured.    An   impediment  by 


Camillus — No.  XXIX.  183 

any  third  nation  to  the  exercife  of  the  right  of  capture  on  the 
ocean  by  either  of  the  belligerent  parties,  would  be  an  injury. 

As  the  goods  of  an  enemy,  within  the  territory  of  a  neutral 
ftate,  are  under  the  protection  thereof,  the  law  of  nations,  for 
the  reafons  that  have  been  dated,  will  not  permit  us  to  take 
them  :  in  like  manner,  we  have  no  right  to  take  them  if  they 
are  on  board  a  (hip,  whilft  the  fhip  is  in  a  neutral  port,  whe- 
ther the  (hip  itfelf  is  a  neutral  one,  or  belongs  to  an  enemy, 
becaufe  the  port  is  a  part  of  the  territory. — When  the  goods  of 
an  enemy  are  on  board  the  fhip  of  an  enemy,  and  the  (hip  is 
in  the  main  ocean,  there  is  no  doubt  of  our  right  to  capture 
both  the  goods  and  the  (hip,  becaufe  they  are  then  in  a  piace 
which  is  not  the  territory  of  any  nation.  But  when  the  goods 
of  an  enemy  are  on  board  a  neutral  (hip,  and  the  (hip  is  in  the 
main  ocean,  though  we  have  a  right  to  take  the  goods,  we 
have  no  right  to  take  the  (hip,  or  to  detain  her  any  longer,  than 
is  neeeflary  to  obtain  pofietlion  of  the  goods — for  the  ocean 
itfelf  is  no  territory — and  neutral  (hips,  as  they  are  moveable 
goods,  can  not  be  parts  of  the  neutral  territory  ;  and  confe- 
quently  are  no  more  under  the  protection  of  the  neutral  itate, 
than  the  fame  goods  would  be,  if  they  were  palling  through 
an  unoccupied  country  in  neutral  carriages,  or  on  neutral 
horfes. 

A  neutral  fhip  (fays  Rutherford  in  his  inftitutes,  whofe  rea- 
foning  on  this  queition  I  adopt)  may  indeed  be  called  a  neutral 
place ;  but  when  we  call  it  to,  the  word  place  does  not  mean 
territory,  it  only  means  the  thing  in  which  the  goods  are  con- 
tained. Though  the  goods  of  the  enemy  had  been  on  board  a 
fhip  belonging  to  the  enemy,  we  might  have  faid,  in  the  fame 
fenfe,  that  they  were  in  a  neutral  place,  if  they  had  been  lock- 
ed up  there  in  a  neutral  cheft.  But  no  one  would  imagine,  that 
fuch  a  neutral  place,  as  a  cheit,  can  be  confulered  as  a  part  of 
the  territory  of  the  neutral  (late,  or  that  it  would  protect  the 
goods.  Notwithstanding,  a  neutral  cheft  is  as  much  a  neutral 
place  as  a  neutral  fhip. 

A  (hin,  though  a  moveable  thing,  is  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  a  nation  whilll  it  continues  in  one  of  its  ports- — but  as  foon 
as  it  is  out  at  fea,  only  the  private  owneithip,  or  inferior  do- 
minion, of  the  (hip  remains,  and  it  ceafes  to  be  under  the  \ 
dominion  or  jurifdiction  of  the  nation.  The  cafe  will  be  the 
fame,  if,  inftead  of  fuppofing  the  (hip  to  be  the  property  of 
a  merchant,  we  fuppofe  it  to  be  the  property  of  the  nation. 

For  though  we  cannot  well  call  the  property  which  the  nation 
has  in  fuch  a  (hip,  by  the  name  of  private  ownerihip:  yet, 
when  the  (hip  comes  intp  the   main  ocean,  the  jurifdiction  or 


184  Cam  ill  us — No.  XXIX. 

paramount  property  ceafes,  and  the  right  that  remains  is  an 
interior  kind  of  property,  which  has  the  nature  of  private 
ownerfhip.  If  the  jurifdiction,  which  A  neutral  (late  has  over 
the  ihips  of  its  members,  or  even  over  its  own  (hips,  ceafes 
when  the  (hips  are  out  at  fea ;  the  goods  of  an  enemy,  that 
are  on  board  fuch  (hips,  cannot  be  under  the  protection  of  the 
nation,  in  the  fame  manner  as  if  the  fhips  had  been  in  one 
of  its  ports,  or  as  if  the  goods  had  been  on  its  land.* 

Notwithftanding  a  neutral  nation,  when  its  ihip  is  in  the 
main  ocean,  has  no  jurifditlLcn  over  the  ihip  itfelf,  as  if  it  was 
a  part  of  its  territory,  yet  the  nation,  or  fome  of  its  members, 
which  is  the  fame  thing,  will  continue  to  have  the  inferior  fort 
of  property,  or  ownerfhip  in  it.  This  fpecies  of  property  will 
protect  the  ihip  from  capture,  though  the  enemy's  goods  on 
board  her  (nay  iawfully  be  taken. 

But  here  a  difficulty  occurs — This  inferior  kind  of  property, 
Called  private  ownerfhip,  to  diltinguifli  it  from  the  jurifdiction 
over  things,  is  an  exclufive  right  ;  thofe  who  have  fuch  owner- 
fhip in  things,  whether  private  or  public  perfons,  have  a  right 
to  exclude  all  others  from  making  ufe  of  fuch  things;  and  by 
this  means,  the  rights  of  others  are  often  hindered  from  tak- 
ing effect. 

Wild  beads,  birds,  and  fifbes,  are,  till  they  are  catched,  in 
common  to  all  mankind;  and  I,  in  common  with  others,  have 
a  right  to  take  them,  and  thereby  to  make  them  my  own — But 
I  cannot  hunt,  or  (hoot,  or  fifh,  ^vithout  perhaps  fometimes 
ufing  the  foil  or  water  of  another  man  ;  and  as  I  have  no  right 
to  ufe  thefe  without  his  eonfent,  he  may  juftly  hinder  me  from 
doing  any  of  thefe  acts,  as  far  as  his  right' of  property  extends. 
Thus  by  private  ownerfhip  I  am  prevented  from  taking  fu'ch 
things,  as  I  fhould  otherwife  have  a  tight  to  take,  if  they  did 
noc  happen  to  be  in  tuch  places  as  he"  had  an  exclufive  right  to. 
In  like  manner,  though  I  have  a  right  to  take  the  goods  of  my 
enemy,  when  they  are  out  at  fea,  yet  may  net  the  effect  of 
this  right  be  prevented  by  the  inferior  property  or  ownerlhip, 
which  a  neutral  nation,  or  its  member;,,  have  in  the  fhip  in 
which  the  goods  axe?  If  the  law  of  nations  is  nothing  but  the 
law  of  nature  applied  to  the  collective  perfons  of  civil  locieties, 
jnftead  of  faying  that  the  law  of  nations  has  decided  otherwife, 
we   mould  difclofe  a  natural   rtafon  why  it  fhould  determine 


*  The  iu:ifdic?jon  here  fpoken  of  is  relative  to  property,  and  altogether 
diftinft  from  wliat  is  termed  perfonal  jurisdiction,  which  refpects  the  relations 
between  the  fociety  and  its  members — This  latter  Ipecies  of  jurifdiilien  is  not 
confin.d  to  the  territorial  limits  of  a  nation. 


Camillus— No.  XXIX.  **5\ 

otherwlfe.  When  I  have  merely  a  right  to  acquire  property  irt 
a  thing  that  is  common  to  all  mankind,  but  cannot  do  it  without 
the  ufe  of  what  is  already  the  property  of  fome  other  man; 
this  man  neither  does  me  an  injury,  nor  encourages  or  pro- 
tects others  wh©  have  injured  me,  by  excluding  me  from  the 
ufe  of  what  belongs  to  him.  But  when  we  have  a  right  in  war, 
upon  account  of  the  damage  which  the  enemy  has  done  us, 
to  take  goods  of  the  enemy,  and  thefe  are  in  a  neutral  fliip: 
if  the  neutral  Hate,  though  it  has  property  in  the  Ihip, 
Ihould  make  ufe  of  its  right  of  properly  to  protect  the  goods 
againft  us,  this  protection  makes  it  an  acceffary  to  the  injury, 
which  is  the  foundation  of  the  claim  upon  the  enemy  to  obtain 
reparation  of  damages,  and  confequently  is  inconfiftent  with 
the  notion  of  neutrality. 

But  whilft  this  anfwer  removes  one  difficulty,  it  brings  ano- 
ther. If  a  neutral  nation  makes  itfelf  acceffary  to  the  damages 
done  by  the  enemy,  by  protecting  fuch  enemy  goods  as  fhe  has 
a  right  to  take  for  reparation  of  damages,  when  thefe  goods 
are  out  at  fea  in  one  of  its  (hips :  Why  might  the  fame  nation, 
Without  becoming  in  like  manner  an  acceflary,  protect  the  fame 
goods  when  the  ihip  is  in  one  of  ito  ports,  or  when  the  goods 
are  on  land  within  its  territory  ?  A  law  of  nations,  which  is 
natural  as  to  the  matter  of  it,  and  pofuive  only  as  to  the  objects 
of  it,  will  furnifh  an  anfwer  to  this  queftion. 

Every  Hate  has,  by  univerfal  acknowledgment  and  content, 
by  the  law  of  nations,  an  exclufive  jurifdiclion  over  its  own 
territory.  As  long,  therefore,  as  a  ftate  keeps  within1  its  own 
territory,  and  exercifes  its  jurifdiclion  there,  the  protection  in 
queftion  is  not  a  violation  of  our  rights — but  when  its  Chips 
are  In  the  main  ocean  ;  as  they  are  then  in  a  place  out  or  its 
territory,  where,  by  the  law  of  nations,  it  has  no  jurikv.'tion, 
this  law  will  allow  us  to  take  notice  of  the  protection,  which  it 
gives  to  the  goods  of  an  enemy,  and  to  confider  it  as  art 
acceflary  to  the  damages  done  by  the  enemy,  if  it  gives  them 
protection. 

In  refpect  to  the  right  of  examination  or  fearch,  if  the  end 
is  Iv.vful,  and  the  examination  or  fearch  a  neceflary  mean  to 
attain  this  end,  the  inference  is  inevitable,  that  the  examination 
oj  fearch  is  likewife  lawful. 

^f  the  queftion,  whether  enemy  goods  are  feizable  on  board 
a  neutral  (hip,  were  really  doubtful ;  yet  the  right  to  fearch 
neutral  fhips  muft  be  admitted  for  another  reafon.  All  agree 
that  arms,  ammunition  and  other  contraband  articles,  may  not 
be  carried  to  an  enemy  by  a  neutral  power — without  fearching 
veflels  at  fea,  fuch  fupply  could  not  be  prevented.  The  right 


1 86  Cam  ill  us— No'.  XXIX. 

to  fearch,  therefore,  refults,  like  wife,  from  the  right  to  feizc 
contraband  goods.  Again,  the  (late  of  war  authorizes  the  cap- 
ture of  enemy  (hips  and  goods — But  on  the  main  ocean,  which 
is  the  great  high-way  where  the  (hips  and  goods  of  all  nations 
pafs  ;  how  are  the  (hips  and  goods  of  an  enemy  to  be  diftin- 
guifhed  from  thofe  of  a  friend  ?  No  other  way  than  by  exami- 
nation and  fearch.  Hence  then  the  right  of  fearch  is  deducible 
from  the  general  right  to  capture  the  (hips  and  goods  of  an 
enemy. 

It  would  undoubtedly  difembarrafs  the  commerce  of  neutral 
nations  were  paiTports  and  (hips  papers  received,  in  all  cafes,  as 
conclufivc  evidence  of  the  quality  and  property  of  the  cargo. 
And  did  treaties,  in  fact,  effectually  fecure  an  exemption  from 
rude  and  detrimental  inquifitions  upon  the  ocean,  they  would 
become  objects  of  ineftimable  worth  to  the  neutral  powers. 
But,  notwithftanding  the  exiftence  of  (lipulations  in  our 
other  treaties  which  aim  at  giving  fome  force  to  fimilar  creden- 
tials, can  it  be  faid,  that  our  (hips  have  been  vifited  with  lefs 
ceremony,  by  one  party,  than  by  the  other?  And  may  not  the 
experience  of  other  nations,  as  well  as  that  of  our  own,  be 
appealed;,to,  in  proof  of  the  opinion,  that  thefe  (lipulations, 
however  exact  and  pofitive,  are  too  little  regarded  by  that 
clafs  of  men,  to  reftrain  and  govern  whofe  conduct  they  are 
inftituted  ? 

The  right  of  fearch  ought  to  be  ufed  with  moderation,  and 
with  as  little  inconvenience  as  poffible  to  the  rights  of  nations 
not  engaged  in  the  war.  And  the  law  of  nations,  on  the  other 
hand,  requires  the  utmoft  good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  neu- 
tral powers.  They  are  bound  not  to  conceal  the  property  of  the 
enemy,  but  on  the  contrary,  to  difclofe  it  when  examination 
fhall  be  made ;  in  confidence  of  this  impartiality,  the  law  of 
nations  obliges  the  powers  at  war  to  give  credit  to  the  certifi- 
cates, bills  of  lading  and  other  inllruments  of  ownerfhip,  pro-r 
duced  by  the  matters  of  neutral  (hips,  unlefs  any  fraud  appear 
in  them,  or  there  be  goofl  reufon  for  fufpeEling  their  validity.  The 
right  of  fearch  is  always  at  the  peril  of  thofe  who  exercife  it  ; 
the  right,  notwithftanding,  muft  be  acknowledged  to  be  jndu-r 
bitable. 

The  reafoning  employed  to  prove  that  all  neutral  (hips,  on  the 
main  ocean),  are  liable  to  fearch,  and  enemy  goods  on  board 
them  o  capture,  is  fupported  by  the  ablell  writers  on  public 
law,  am;   the  i   is  believed   to   be   unanimouily  in  its 

favor. 

The  Italian  flat,  s  were  the  firft  among  modern  nations,  who 
cultivated  the  m.-     (It  or  commerce,  and  before  the  paflage  of 


Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXIX  id? 

the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  Venice  and  Genoa,  diftributed  the 
manufactures  of  Afia  throughout  Europe.  They,  therefore, 
firft  defined  the  rights  of  navigation.  Their  maritime  regula* 
tions  are  collected  in  a  work  called  "  Confolato  del  Mare;"  I 
do  not  poflefs  the  collection,  but  find  the  following  quota- 
tion from  it  in  Grotius.* 

"  If  both  the  (hip  and  freight  belong  to  the  enemy,  then, 
without  difpute,  they  become  lawful  prize  to  the  captor  ;  but 
if  the  (hip  belong  to  thofe  that  be  at  peace  with  us,  and  the 
cargo  be  the  enemy's,  they  may  be  forced  by  the  powers  at  war, 
to  put  into  any  of  their  ports,  and  unlade  ;  but  yet  the  mafter 
muft  be  Satisfied  for  the  freight  of  them." 

Grotius,  that  learned,  and  perfecuted  friend  of  liberty, 
whofe  life  and  great  talents  were  dedicated  to  the  fervice  of 
mankind,  and  who  difplayed  fo  much  ability  and  learning  in 
defending  the  freedom  of  the  feas,  and  of  commerce,  is  clearly 
of  opinion,  that  enemy  goods  are  not  protected  by  neutral  bot- 
toms; he  even  goes  farther,  and  allows  that  fuch  property  oc- 
cafions  great  preemption,  that  the  veflel  is,  Jikewife,  enemy 
property. f  Bynkerfhook  is  of  the  fame  opinion.  |  Puffen- 
dorf||  and  Heinecius  §  agree  in  this  law,  and  Vattel  who  is 
the  latefl:  writer,  is  explicit  in  his  opinion;  "  without  fcarching 
neutral  (hips  at  lea,"  fays  he,  "  the  commerce  of  contraband 
goods  cannot  be  prevented — There  is  then  a  right  of  fearching. 
Some  powerful  nations  have,  at  different  times,  refufed  to  fub- 
mit  to  this.  At  prefent  a  neutral  (hip  refufing  to  be  fearched, 
would,  from  that  proceeding  alone,  be  condemned  as  lawful 
prize."  "  Effects  belonging  to  an  enemy,  found  on  board  a 
neutral  fhip,  are  feizable  by  the  rights  of  war;  but  by  the  law 
of  nature,  the  mafter  is  to  be  paid  his  freight,  and  not  to  fuffer 
by  the  feizure.  The  effects  of  neutrals,  found  on  board  an 
enemy  fhip,  are  to  be  reftored  to  the  owners,  againft  whom 
there  is  no  right  of  confiscation." 

Other  authors  of  refpcctability  might  be  quoted  ;  but  thofe 
already  named  will  be  acknowledged  as  the  ableft,  and  their 
authority  the  moft  decifive  of  any  that  can  be  cited — fo  ftrong, 
clear  and  uninterrupted,  are  the  authorities  of  the  writers  oa 

•  Grotius.     Book  3,  chap,  t,  feci.  5,  Note. 

f  Grotius.     Book  3,  chap.   4,  fc.it.  8 — Book  3,  chap.  6,  fe<3«  6. 

I  Bynkerfhook,  queft.  jur.  pub.  lib.  1,  cap.  13  and  14. 

H  Puffendorf. 

§  Hciaccius  de  navibus  cap,  2  k-oT.  114,  U.j,  116. 


1 88  Camillus— No.  XXX. 

public  law  in  relation  to  thefe  points,  that  the  advocates  of  aa 
eppofite  rule,  may  be  challenged  to  produce  a  Angle  authority 
of  approved  respectability  in  fupport  of  their  opinion.  * 

CAMILLUS. 


No.  XXX. 


ADMITTING  that  it  was  the  law  of  nations  that  ene- 
my's goods  might  be  feized  in  neutral  mips,  it  is  alleged 
by  Cato  and  other  writers,  who  have  appeared  on  the  fame 
fide,  that  the  treaties  which  have  been  formed  between  nations 
have  annulled  this  law,  and  eftablifhed  another  in  its  {lead, 
equally  extenfive  and  binding  on  the  whole  civilized  world* 

In  difcuffing  this  allegation,  we  fhould  remember,  that  all 
nations  are  in  a  ftate  of  equality,  and  independent  of  each 
Other.  No  law,  other  than  the  neceffary  or  natural  law  of  na- 
tions, is  binding  on  any  nation  without  its  confent,  exprefsty 
Or  tacitly  given.  A  law  among  nations  cannot,  like  a  civil  ot 
municipal  law,  be  annulled,  or  enacled  by  a  majority,  or  any 
portion  fhort  of  the  whole.  By  agreement  between  two  or  more 
nations,  the  operation  of  a  law  already  in  exiflence,  may  be 
fufpended  fo  far  as  refpecls  themfelves  '■>  but  fuch  agreement 
works  no  change  of  fuch  law,  in  relation  to  the  rights  or  du- 
ties  of  other  nations.  The  fame  is  true  of  any  rule  of  action, 
eftablifhed  by  convention  between  two  nations ;  fuch  rule  is 
obligatory  on  the  parties  that  form  the  contract,  but  is  wholly 
without  effect  and  nugatory  in  refpedt  to  all  other  nations.  Un- 
lefs  then  all  nations  have  concurred  in  the  defign  to  annul 
this  law,  it  mull  ilill  exift ;  and  treaties  containing  oppofite  lti- 
pulations,  can  be  confidered  in  no  other  light,  than  as  excep- 
tions to  the  fame,  in  which  certain  nations  have  feen  it  their 
intereft  to  agree. 

Tho'  one  nation  may  have  agreed  with  another  to  fufpend  the 
operation  of  this  law,  and  to  iubftitute  the  rule  that  free  (hips 
make  free  goods,  and  enemy  (hips  enemy  goods,  there  may 
have  been  fome  peculiar  reafon  that  induced  the  parties  to  form 
this  convention  with  each  other,  that  would  not  apply  in  re* 
fpec~l  to  any  other  nation. 

A  nation  may  advance  its  intereft  perhaps  by  forming  fuch 
a  treaty,  with  one  nation,  and  injure  it  by   forming  it  with 

*  This  fubjedt  will  be  refumed  and  purfued  under  different  afpc<5b  in  another 
number. 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXX.  189 

another — Becaufe  a  nation  has,  in  feme  inftances,  or  for  a 
Jimited  time,  formed  ftipulations  of  this  fort,  it  cannot  from, 
thence  be  inferred,  that  it  has  thereby,  in  any  fenfe,  expreffed 
its  confent  to  a  total  repeal  of  a  law,  the  operation  of  which 
it  has  agreed  to  fufpend  only  for  a  limited  time,  and  in  refpect 
to  a  particular  nation.  Commercial  treaties,  in  which  we  dis- 
cover thefe  ftipulations,  though  not  always,  are  commonly 
limited  in  their  duration.  This  limitation  is  a  ftrong  argument 
againlt  the  doctrine  which  thefe  treaties  are  cited  to  cftablifh. 
For  fo  many  years,  fay  the  parties,  we  will  fufpend  the  opera- 
tion of  the  law.  When  the  treaty  expires  by  its  proper  limita- 
tion, or  is  diflblved  by  war,  the  rule  of  the  treaty  ceafes,  and 
the  law  is  again  in  force  between  the  parties,  and  prefcribes  to 
them,  in  common  with  other  nations,  their  rights  and  duties 
in  this  refpecl. 

The  law  of  nations,  that  authorizes  the  capture  of  enemy 
goods  in  neutral  fhips,  requires  the  refloration  of  neutral  goods 
captured  in  enemy  fhips :  The  treaties,  which  ilipulate  that 
free  fhips  make  free  goods,  ftipulate  alfo  that  enemy  ihips  make 
enemy  goods.  I  have  discovered  no  inlt  nice  of  the  former  fti- 
pulation,  that  has  not  been  accompanied  by  the  latter  :  though 
I  have  found  inftances  of  the  latter  ltipulation  unaccompanied 
by  the  former. — This  is  the  cafe  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  com- 
merce and  alliance  between  Spain  and  England,  concluded  at 
Madrid  in  1667.  Thofe,  therefore,  who  contend  that  the.  law 
of  nations  has  been  repealed  id  one  inftance,  mult  alfo  infift 
that  it  has  been  repealed  in  the  other. — If  the  number  of  fti- 
pulations is  to  be  received  as  evidence,  the  proof  is  ftronger  of 
a  repeal  in  the  latter  than  in  the  former  cafe. —  But  will  any  one 
feriouily  maintain,  that  a  nation  would  have  a  right  to  confif- 
Gate  the  goods  of  a  neutral  power  found  on  board  an  enemy 
fhip,  without  an  exprefs  ftipulation  on  the  parr  of  fuch  neu- 
tral Itate  confenting  to  the  fame  ? Would  England  or  Spain, 

for  example,  have  a  right  to  confifcate  American  property 
captured  in  a  French  (hip  ?  Would  America,  if  at  war,  have  a 
right  to  confifcate  the  neutral  property  of  Spain,  Portugal, 
Denmark,  or  Ruffia,  iov.m\  on  board  an  enemy  Chip  -?  Has  any 
nation  ever  confifcated  property  under  this  circumftance  ?  If 
not,  the  inference  is  clear,  that  thefe  ftipulations  are  exclufively 
relative  to  the  parties  who  form  them,  and  that  the  rights  or. 
other  dates  remain  under  the  protection  of  the  law  of  nations. 

But  according  to  Cato,  this  reafoning  may  be  juft,  yet  in- 
applicable •,  for  he  maintains  that  ail  ria.  contented  to 
the  eftablrfhment  of  tiiis  conventional  iaw.  "  As  far  back  as  i  50 
years,"  fays  this  writer,  "  and  ever  fi  nee,  I  t'fhecom- 
Vol.  III.                        D  d 


ipo  Camii,lus— No.  XXX. 

mercial  nations  have  flipulated  in  their  treaties,  that  free  (hips 
(hall  make  free  goods,  that  full  credit  (hall  be  given  to  (hips' 
papers,  and  that  armed  vefTels  (hall  not  come  within  cannon 
(hot  of  a  neutral  (hip,  but  fend  their  boats  on  board  with 
only  two  or  three  men  at  molt,  to  examine  papers,  but  not  to 
fearcb)  and  that  the  treaties  (by  which  is  underltood  all  the 
treaties)  for  150  years  back,  relative  to  this  object,  are  drawn 
in  the  words  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
France." 

Struck  with  the  fulnefs  of  this  afiertion,  I  have  carefully 
examined  fuch  collections  of  treaties,  as  I  have  been  able  to  pro- 
cure, and  going  back  to  the  year  1645,  I  have  given  a  patient 
fearchto  all  the  public  conventions  between  Great  Britain  and 
the  feveral  powers  of  Europe  fince  that  period.  I  find,  that 
fince  that  epoch,  Great  Britain  has  concluded  commercial  trea- 
ties with  Spain,  Portugal,  France,  Holland,  Dantzic,  Den- 
mark, Sweden,  and  Rullia. 

In  the  treaties  with  Holland  and  with  France,  (he  has  agreed 
to  the  (tipulation,  that  free  (hips  (hould  make  free  goods,  and 
enemy  (hips,  enemy  goods.  In  Chalmers's  collection  of  treaties, 
a  fimilar  (tipulation  is  contained  in  the  23d  article  of  the  treaty 
of  alliance,  concluded  in  1564,  between  Oliver  Cromwell  and 
the  king  of  Portugal ;  but  in  other  collections,  in  which   that 
treaty  is  found,  it  does  not  contain  a  (tipulation  that  free  (hips 
(hall  make  free  goods;  and  it  has  been  denied,  from  a  rep'"^- 
ble  quarter  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  that  (he  has  e 
ceded  to   this  principle,  except  in  the  instances  of  her  t 
with  Holland  and  France  ;  neither  of  which  exift  any  I 
the  former  having  expired  long  fince,  and  the  latter  beii 
folved  by  the  prefent   war.    Her  treaties  with  Spain,  D; 
Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Ruflia,  do   neither   of  them  c 
this  (tipulation.  On  the  contrary,  the  12th  article  of  the 
with  Sweden,  and  the  20th  of  the  treaty  with  Denmark, 
of  which  is  now  in  force,  and  has  been  fo  for  more  than 
tury,  as  likewife  the  14th   article  of  the  treaty  with  Da 
declares,  that  "  le(t  the  enemy's  goods  and  merchandize  1 
be  concealed   under  the   difguife  of  the  goods  of  friends,  it  is 
(tipulated,   that  all   (hips   (hail    be  furnifhed  with  paflports  and 
certificates,  by  which  it  (hail  be  manifeft  to  whom  the  articles, 
compofing  the  cargoes,  belong  ;"  and  the  two  firft  of  thefe  trea- 
ties, moreover,  declare  it  "  to  be  injurious  to  protect  the  pro- 
perty of  enemies,"  and  eftabliih  fpecial  guards  to  prevent  the 
fame. 

In  relation  to  the  full  credit  to  be  given  to  (hips'  papers,  and 
the  manner  of  boarding  neutral  veilels, — in  the  treatits  with 


Ca  mill  us — No.  XXX.  ipi 

Spain,  France,  and  Holland,  it  is  ftipulated,  that  full  faith  fhall 
be  given  to  the  paflports,  and  that  the  boarding  (hall  be  by  two 
or  three  men  only.  But  the  treaties  with  Portugal  and  RufTia 
are  destitute  of  any  ftipulation  on  this  fubjecl,  except  that  in 
the  latter  it  is  agreed,*  that  "  the  fearching  of  merchant  (hips 
(hall  be  as  favorable  as  the  reafon  of  the  war  can  poflibly 
admit,  toward  the  mod  favored  neutral  nation,  obferving,  as 
near  as  may  be,  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  that  are 
generally  acknowledged."  f  In  the  treaties  with  Dantzic,  Den- 
mark, and  Sweden,  palTports  are  required  for  the  purpofe  of 
diftinguifhing,  according  to  the  folemnities  of  thoie  treaties, 
the  enemy  property  on  board  the  (hips  of  the  parties;  and  it  is 
ftipulated,  that  credit  (hall  be  given  to  fuch  paflports,  except 
in  cafes  of  juft  and  urgent  caufe  of  fufpicion,  when,  fay  thefe 
treaties,  the  (hip  ought  to  be  fearched  ;  an  exception,  that  fully 
recognizes  the  right  to  fearch,  eflentially  does  away  the  fecu- 
rity  intended  by  the  paflports.  But  neither  of  thefe  treaties  con- 
tain any  regulation  relative  to  the  manner  of  boarding  neutral 
veffels. 

This  refearch,  though  made  with  care,  may  have  been  im- 
perfect j  the  refult  thereof  is,  that  there  are  only  two,  pofhbly 
three,  of  thefe  eight  nations,  with  whom  Great  Britain  has 
ever  agreed  to  the  ftipulation,  that  free  (hips  (hall  make  free 
goods  j  only  three  of  them  with  whom  (lie  has  ftipulated,  that 
full  credit  fhall  be  given  to  paflports  or  (hips'  papers,  or  with 
whom  the  manner  of  boarding  is  fettled.  Inftead,  therefore, 
of  that  uniformity  and  univerfality  in  the  ftipulations  in  the  com- 
mercial treaties,  concluded  within  the  laft  150  years,  fo  confi- 
dently aflerted  by  Cato,  we  fee  that  in  five  inftances  out  of 
eight,  of  treaties  concluded  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
principal  powers  of  Europe,  within  that  term,  they  have  on 
each  of  thefe  points,  given  their  fan&ion  to  a  law  directly  in 
oppofition  to  the  afiertion  of  this  adventurous  writer. 

Yet,  fays  Cato,  "  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality, 
by  the  general  con  fen  t  of  the  great  community  of  the  civilized 
world,  changed  the  law  of  nations." — It  is  a  fingular  logic  that 
proves  the  agreement  of  nations  by  their  difagreement,  and 
their  confent  to  a  principle,  by  their  drawing  forth  their  fleet 
to  difpute  it.  The  armed  neutrality,  with  thoie  who  under- 
itand  its  hiftory,  will  not  be  relied  on  by  way  of  proving  a. 
change  in  the  law  of  nations,  brought  about  by  univerfnl  con- 
fent. 

*  Treaty  of  1776,  article  10. 

•j-  Treaty  with  Dantzic  of  X706,  article  ;  ■ 


192  Camillus— No.  XXX. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  this  league,  which  was  aimed  prin- 
cipally againft  Great  Britain,  failed  to  accomplish  its  purpofe, 
and  that  it  expired  with  the  American  war.  Nothing  Iras  been 
heard  of  it  during  the  prefent  war ;  and  it  is  notorious,  that 
Ruflia,  and  Holland  before  its  conqueft,  were  under  agreements 
incompatible  with  the  views  of  that  affociation.  The  northern 
powers  of  Europe  under  the  countenance  of  France,  united  to 
fupport  the  principles  of  the  armed  neutrality;  but  the  league 
did  not  include  all  the  neutral  powers  ;  and  of  the  powers  en- 
gaged in  the  war,  at  that  period,  Spain  confented  to  obferve 
the  principles  contended  for  by  the  confederacy,  on  condition 
that  Great  Britain  would  agree  to  them,  who,  fo  far  from  agree- 
ing, openly  refilled  them. 

On  the  fame  principle,  by  which  it  is  contended  that  this 
aflbciation  introduced  a  new  law  of  nations,  might  the  armed 
leagues  between  certain  nations  to  prohibit  all  commerce  what- 
ever with  an  enemy,  be  appealed  to  in  proof  of  an  alteration 
of  the  law  of  nations  in  this  refpecl.  England  and  Holland  en- 
tered into  fuch  a  league  againft  France,  in  the  year  1689;  and 
other  inftances  are  mentioned  by  Grotius  ;  yet  no  one  has  ever 
imagined  that  thereby  any  change  was  wrought  in  the  law  of 
nations. 

The  objection  that  has  arifen  from  the  diffimilarity  between 
this  article  and  thofe  relative  to  the  fame  fubjedt  in  our  other 
treaties,  is  equally  defective  with  thofe  already  confidered.  The 
objection  proceeds  from  an  opinion  that  the  law  of  nations  has 
been  changed,  and  that  the  flipulations  in  our  other  treaties 
are  evidence  taereof.  The  obfervations  that  have  been  offered 
on  this  fubject,  are  equally  applicable  to  this  objection,  and  it 
is  therefore  unneceflary  to  repeat  them. 

Not  only  reafon,  and  the  authority  of  juiiUs,  but  likewife 
the  practice  of  nations,  where  they  have  been  unreftrained  by 
particular  conventions,  may  be  appealed  to  in  fupport  of  this 
doctrine- 

The  practice  of  France,  of  Holland,  even  fubfequent  to 
particular  flipulations,  regulating  this  fubject  between  them- 
ieives,  has,  in  refpect  to  other  powers,  been  conformable  to 
the  law  of  nations — The  ordinances  and  maritime  decifions  of 
France  may  be  confulted  to  (how  what  her  practice  has  been, 
and  that  of  Holland  is  evident  by  the  convention  of  1689,  be- 
tween her  and  England.  The  practice  of  Spain  is  underftood 
to  be  the  fame  ;  and  in  an  inllance  that  occurred  during  the  Ame- 
rican war,  flie  carried  the  law  to  its  utmoft  rigour,  in  affigning 
as  a  caufe  of  condemnation  of  a  neutral  Tufcan  fhip,  her  forcible 
refiflance  of  the   right  of  fearch.    Her  capture  of  American 


Oamillus — No.  XXX.  193 

fhips,  during  the  prefent  war,  on  fufpicion  of  their  cargoes 
being  enemy  property,  affords  additional  evidence  of  her  pT  - 
tice  and  opinions  on  this  fubjecl.  In  refpecl  to  Great  B  itain, 
from  rhe  general  notoriety  of  the   fadl,  it  feems,  in  ;  ", 

unneceflary  to  add,  that  fhe  has  immemorially  adhered,  er 

general  practice,  to  the  law  of  nations  in  its  wider!  interp  1- 
tion  on  this  fubjecl.  In  a  few  inftances,  and  perhaps  fo  e*- 
cial  reafons,  as  was  the  cafe  in  refpecl  to  the  treaty  with  Hol- 
land,  concluded  in  1667,  flie  has  entered  into  oppofite  ftipula- 
tions;  but  at  this  time,  unlefs  it  may  be  with  Portugal,  Great 
Britain  has  no  fuch  treaty  with  any  nation. 

So  undifputed  was  the  law  on  this  fubjecl,  and  fo  uniform 
the  practice  of  nations  in  cafes,  not  governed  by  a  conventional 
rule,  that  congrefs,  in  the  commencement,  and  through  the 
greater  part  of  our  revolution  war,  authorized  our  fhips  of 
war  and  privateers,  to  capture  enemy  property  on  board  neu- 
tral (hips,  and  our  admiralty  courts  uniformly  reftored  neutral 
property  found  on  board  enemy  fhips.  This  praclice  continued 
years  after  the  conclufion  of  our  treaty  with  France,  which 
contains  a  ftipulation,  that  free  fhips  lhall  make  free  goods,  and 
enemy  (hips  enemy  goods;  no  perlon,  during  that  period,  hav- 
ing fuppofed  that  thereby  the  law  was  altered  in  refpecl:  to 
other  nations. 

Towards  the  clofe  of  the  war,  to  favor  the  views  of  the 
armed  neutrality,  in  which  league  the  United  States  were  not 
a  party,  but  whofe  oppofition  to  Great  Britain  they  naturally 
approved  ;  congrefs,  in  an  ordinance  on  the  fubjecl  of  captures, 
ordained  that  neutral  bottoms  fhould  protecl  enemy  goods — 
but  here  they  flopped.  Thus  far  the  authority  was  indubitable, 
becaufe  it  was  exercifed  only  in  abridgment  of  their  own  rights. 
Being  engaged  in  war,  they  could  not  by  their  own  acl,  enlarge 
their  rights,  or  abridge  thofe  of  neutral  fhips  ;  the  extent  of 
both  being  defined  and  fettled  by  the  public  law  of  nations. 
They,  therefore,  never  authorized  the  capture  and  condemna- 
tion of  neutral  goods  found  in  enemy  fhips,  nor  could  they  have 
authorized  the  fame,  without  a  manifeft  violation  of  the  rights 
of  the  neutral  powers. 

It  is  finally  alleged  that  the  article,  if  found  in  its  principles, 
is  defective  in  thofe  provifions  which  are  requifite  to  protecl 
and  fecure  the  neutral  rights  of  the  parties  ;  inaiinuch  as  it  does 
not  contain  an  explicit  fh'pulation  for  the  payment  of  freight 
on  enemy  goods,  nor  for  the  payment  of  damages  for  the  deten- 
tion or  lofs  of  neutral  fhips  taken  without  juft  caufe.  I  do  not 
reccllecl  to  have  met  with  any  precife  ftipulation  on  thefe  points, 
in  the  commercial  treaties  between  other  nations. — None  fuch, 


1 94  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXX. 

if  my  recollection  be  right,  are  found  in  any  of  our  other  trea- 
ties; and  I  think  it  would  be  fomewhat  difficult  to  form  fuch 
as  would  afford  to  the  parties  a  more  fatisfadtory  fecurity  than 
that  which  arifes  from  the  law  of  nations — a  neutral  fhip  is 
entitled  to  freight  for  enemy  goods  captured  on  board  her  ;  but 
this  right,  if  fo  admitted,  may  be  forfeited  by  the  irregular 
conduct  of  the  neutral,  by  the  poflcffion  of  falfe  or  double  pa- 
pers, by  the  deftruction  of  papers,  or  by  thofe  fraudulent  con- 
cealments and  evafions,  which  are  inconfiltent  with  fair  and 
impartial  neutrality.  A  fhip  taken  and  detained  without  juft 
caufe,  is,  together  with  her  cargo,  at  the  rifk  of  the  captors 
from  the  moment  of  capture  -,  and  in  cafes  of  partial  or  total 
lofs,  or  of  damages  by  detention,  the  owner  is  entitled  to  full 
and  complete  indemnification.  But  in  cafe  the  neutral  (hip  is 
under  fuch  equivocal  and  doubtful  circumftances,  as  afford 
probable  caufe  to  believe  that  either  the  fhip,  or  cargo,  is  ene- 
my property,  a  fituation  not  to  be  reconciled  with  an  open  and 
fair  neutrality,  in  fuch  cafe,  though  on  trial  both  fhip  and  car- 
go fhould  turn  out  to  have  been  bona  fide  neutral  property, 
yet  the  captors  may  avail  themfelves  of  her  equivocal  fituation 
and  character,  in  mitigation,  if  not,  under  very  peculiar  cir-" 
cumftances,  in  total  difcharge  of  damages.  No  ftipulation,  there- 
fore, without  thefe  exceptions,  would  have  afforded  to  the 
parties  adequate  fecurity  againft  fuch  irregularities,  and  with 
them,  its  want  of  precifion  would  have  left  the  fubject  as  it  now 
ftands,  to  be  regulated  by  the  known  and  approved  provifions 
of  the  law  of  nations. 

Thefe  provifions  being  well  underftood,  the  article  concludes 
with  a  ftipulation  againft  delays  in  the  admiralty,  and  in  the 
payment  and  recovery  of  the  damages  it  fhall  decree. 

This  examination,  I  flatter  myfelf,  has  fulfilled  its  object, 
which  was  to  prove,  that  the  article  relinquifhes  no  right  that 
we  poffeffed  as  a  nation,  that  it  is  agreeable  to,  and  fupported 
by,  the  law  of  nations.  A  law  in  relation  to  this  fubject,  coeval 
with  the  origin  of  maritime  commerce,  and  the  principles 
whereof  have  immemorially  operated  among  nations. 

It  was  defirable  that  a  ftipulation,  fimilar  to  that  contained 
in  our  other  treaties,  fhould  have  been  obtained,  But  the  time 
was  unfavorable  to  the  attainment  of  this  object :  and,  as  with 
great  propriety  has  been  obferved  by  Mr.  Jefferfon,  in  behalf 
of  our  government — "  fince  it  depends  on  the  will  of  other 
nations  as  well  as  cur  own,  we  can  only  obtain  it,  when  they 
fhall  be  ready  to  confent."  By  the  1 2th  article,  the  parties 
agree  to  renew  the  negociation  on  this  point,  within  the  com- 


Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXXI. 


l9S 


pafs  of  two  years  after  the  conclufion  of  the  prefent  war  ;  when 
perhaps  the  reftoration  of  peace,  and  other  circumftances,  may 
prove  more  propitious  to  our  views. 

CAMILLUS. 


No.    XXXI. 


IR  E  S  U  M  E  the  fubjecl  of  the  two  laft  papers  for  the  fake 
of  a  few  fupplementary  obfervations. 

The  objections  to  the  treaty>  for  not  containing  the  principle, 
**  that  free  mips  make  free  goods,"  as  being  the  relinquifhment 
of  an  advantage,  which  the  modern  law  of  nations  gives  to 
neutrals,  have  been  fully  examined,  and,  1  flatter  myfelf,  com- 
pletely refuted. 

I  mall,  however,  add  one  or  two  reflections  by  way  of  fur- 
ther illuftration.  A  pre-eftablifhed  rule  of  the  law  of  nations, 
can  only  be  changed  by  their  common  content.  This  confent  may 
either  be  exprefs,  by  treaties,  declarations,  &c.  adopting  and 
promifing  the  obfervance  of  a  different  rule,  or  it  may  be  im- 
plied, by  a  courfe  of  practice  or  ufage.  The  confent,  in  either 
cafe,  muft  embrace  the  great  community  of  civilized  nations. 
If  to  be  inferred  from  treaties,  it  muft  be  mown  that  they  are 
uniform  and  univcrfal.  It  can,  at  leaft,  never  be  inferred, 
while  the  treaties  of  different  nations  follow  different  rules,  or 
the  treaties  between  the  fame  nation  and  others,  vary  from 
each  other.  So  alfo  as  to  ufage.  It  muft  be  uniform  and  uni- 
vcrfal, and,  let  it  be  added,  it  muft  be  continued.  A  ufage 
adopted  by  fome  nations,  and  refifted  by  others,  or  adopted  by 
all  temporarily  and  then  difcontinued,  is  infufBcient  to  abolith 
an  old,  or  fubftitute  a  new  rule  of  the  Jaw  of  nations.  It  has 
been  demonftrated,  that  no  confent  of  either  defcription  has 
been  given  to  the  rule,  which  is  contended  for  in  oppofition  to 
the  treaty. 

The  armed  neutrality,  fo  much  quoted,  is  entirely  deficient 
in  the  requifite  characters.  Its  name  imports  that  it  was  an 
armed  combination  of  particular  powers.  It  grew  up  in  the 
midfl  of  a  war,  and  is  undeiftood  to  have  been  particularly 
levelled  againfl  one  of  the  belligerent  parties.  It  was  refifted 
by  that  power.  There  were  other  powers,  which  did  not  ac- 
cede to  it.  It  is  a  recent  tranfadtion,  and  has  never  acquired  the 
confirmation  of  continued  ufage.  What  is  more,  it  has  been 
virtually  abandoned  by  fome  of  the  parties  to  it — and  among 


196*  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXI. 

thefe,  by  the  principal  promoter  of  it,  the  politic  and  enter- 
prifing  Catharine.  It  is,  therefore,  a  perverfion  of  all  juft  ideas, 
to  afcribe  to  fuch  a  combination  the  effect  of  altering  a  rule  of 
the  law  of  nations. 

In  mod  important  queftions,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  op- 
pofers  of  the  truth  are  as  much  at  variance  with  each  other  as 
they  are  with  the  truth  they  oppofe.  This  was  ftrikingly  exem- 
plified when  the  prefent  conftitution  of  the  United  States  was 
under  deliberation.  The  opposition  to  it  was  compofed  of  the 
moft  incongruous  materials— the  fame  thing  is  obfervable  in 
relation  to  the  treaty. — And  one  inftance  of  the  contrariety 
applies  to  the  rule  cited  above. 

While  fome  of  the  adverfaries  of  the  teeaty  complain  of  the 
admiffion  of  a  contrary  principle  by  that  inflrument,  as  the 
abandonment  of  a  rule  of  the  prefent  law  of  nations ;  others, 
conceding  that  there  is  no  fuch  rule  yet  eftablifhcd,  cenfure 
that  admiffion  as  a  check  to  its  complete  and  formal  ejlablijhmenty 
and  as  a  retrograde  ftep  from  this  defirable  point. 

The  objection  in  this  form  is  more  plaufible  than  in  the 
other,  but  it  is  not  lefs  deftitute  of  fubftance.  If  there  has  been 
any  retrograde  ftep,  it  was  taken  by  the  government  prior  to' 
the  treaty — authentic  documents,  which  have  been  communi- 
cated by  the  executive  to  congrefs,  contain  the  evidence  of  this 
fact. 

Early  in  the  year  1793,  fome  Britifh  cruifers  having  {topped 
veffels  of  the  United  States,  and  taken  out  of  them  articles 
which  were  the  property  of  French  citizens,  Mr.  Genet,  the 
then  minifter  of  France,  in  a  letter  of  the  9th  of  July  of  that 
year,  made  a  lively  reprefentation  upon  the  fubjedt  to  our  go- 
vernment, infifting,  in  a  fubfequent  letter  of  the  25th  of  that 
month,  in  which  he  recurs  to  the  fame  point,  that  the  princi- 
ples of  neutrality  eftablifhed,  that  friendly  veffels  make  friendly 
goods  ;  and  in  effect,  that  the  violation  of  this  rule  by  Great 
Britain  was  a  violation  of  our  neutral  rights,  which  we  were 
bound  to  refent. 

The  reply  of  our  government,  is  fecn  in  a  letter  from  our 
fecretary  of  ftate  to  that  minifter,  of  the  24th  of  July — It  is 
in  thefe  terms — "  I  believe,"  fays  Mr.  Jefferfon,  "  It  cannot 
be  doubted,  but  that  by  the  general  law  of  nations,  the  goods 
of  a  friend,  found  in  the  veffel  of  an  enemy,  are  free,  and  the 
goods  of  an  enemy,  found  in  the  veffel  of  a  friend,  are  lawful 
prize.  Upon  this  principle,  I  prefume,  the  Britifh  armed  vef- 
fels have  taken  the  property  of  French  citizens  found  in  our 
veffels  in  the  cafes  above  mentioned  ;  and,  I  confefs,  I  fhould 
be  at  a  lofs  on  what  principle  to  reclaim  them.  It  is  true  that 


Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXXI.  19} 

fundry  nations,  defirous  of  avoiding  the  inconveniencies  of  hav- 
ing their  veffels  flopped  at  fe'a,  ranfacked,  carried  into  port, 
and  detained  under  pretence  of  having  enemy  goods  on  board, 
have,  in  many  inftances,  introduced,  by  their  fpecial  treaties, 
another  principle  between  them,  that  enemy  bottoms  fhall 
make  enemy  goods,  and  friendly  bottoms  friendly  goods;  a 
principle  much  lefs  embarraffing  to  commerce,  and  equal  to  all 
parties  in  point  of  gain  and  loftr,  but  this  is  altogether  the  effect 
oi  particular  treaty,  controuling,  in  fpecial  cafes,  the  general 
principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  and,  therefore,  taking  effect 
between  fuch  nations  only  as  have  fo  agreed  to  controul  it.'' 

N  irhing  can  be  a  more  explicit  or  unequivocal  abandonment 
of  the  rile,  that  free  (hips  make  free  goods,  and  vice  verjh, 
titan  is  (  ontained  in  this  communication.  But  this  is  not  all :  In 
the  letti  1  from  Mr.  Jefferfon  to  our  minifter  in  France,  of  the 
26  -'-uft,    1793,   inftructing   him  to    urge  the   recall  of 

3V-  t,  the  fubject  is  refumed,  the  pofition  afferted  in  an- 

f\  Mr.  Genet,  infifted  upon  anew,  and  enforced  by  addi- 

*  rations:  Among  other  fuggeftions,  we  find  thefe, 

*'  We  fuppofe  it  to  have  been  long  an  eftablifhed  principle  of 
the  law  of  nations,  that  the  goods  of  a  friend  are  free  in  an 
enemy's  veffel,  and  an  enemy's  goods  lawful  prize  in  the  veffel 
of  a  friend.  The  inconvenience  of  this  principle  has  induced 
feveral  nations  latterly  to  ftipulate  againft  it  by  treaty,  and  to 
fubftitute  another  in  its  ftead,  that  free  bottoms  fhall  make  free 
goods,  and  enemy  bottoms,  enemy  goods.  We  have  introduced  it 
into  our  treaties  with  France,  Holland,  and  Ruffia  ;  and  French 
goods,  found  by  the  two  latter  nations  in  American  bottoms, 
are  not  made  prize  of.  It  is  our  wifh  to  eftablifh  it  with  other 
nations : — But  this  requires  their  confent  alio,  is  a  work  of  time, 
and,  in  th  :  tl    •   hi  re  a  right  to  act  on  the  general 

principle,  wii  fe  of  complaint. 

,  that  France  can  lofe  by  it  on  the  whole — For  though 
ihe  lofes  her  gooc's,  when  found  in  our  veffels,  by  the  nations 
■with  whom  we  have  no  tr^atievS — yet  fhe  gains  our  goods  when 
found  in  the  veflels  of  the  fame  and  all  other  nations  ;  and  we 
believe  the  latter  mafs  to  be  greater  than  the  former." 

Thus,  then,  Hood  the  bufinefs  antecedent  to  the  treaty. 
Great  Britain,  adhering  to  the  principle  of  the  general  and  long 
eftablifhed  law  of  nations,  captures  French  property  in  our  vef- 
fels, and  leaves  free  our  property  in  French  veffels.  We  acqui- 
efce  in  this  practice,  without  even  a  remonftrance  or  murmur. 
The  French  minifter  complains  of  it,  as  contrary  to  the  princi- 
ples of  neutrality — We  reply,  that,  in  our  opinion,  it  is  not 
contrary  to  thofe  principles — that  it  is  fully  warranted  bv  the 
Vol.  IH.  E  e 


lg%  Camillus — No.  XXXI. 

general  law  of  nations — that  treaties,  which  eftablifh  a  different 
rule,  are  merely  exceptions  to  that  law,  binding  only  on 
the  contracting  parties;  that  having  no  treaty  of  the  fort  with 
Great  Britain,  we  fhould  be  at  lofs  on  what  ground  to  difpute 
the  legitimacy  of  her  practice.  We  do  not  (imply  forbear  to  op- 
pofe — We  do  not  offer  to  France  as  an  excufe  for  our  forbear- 
ance, that  it  is  inconvenient  to  us,  at  the  moment,  to  affert  a 
questionable  right  at  the  hazard  of  war — But  we  tell  her  pe- 
remptorily, that,  in  our  opinion,  no  fuch  right  exiits,  and  that 
the  conduct  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  particular  cafe,  is  juitified 
by  the  law  of  nations — neither  do  we  wrap  the  motive  of  our 
forbearance  in  iilence,  nor  content  ourfelves  with  revealing  ic 
confidentially  to  France  alone  ;  but  we  publifh  it  without  referve 
to  the  world,  and  thus,  in  the  prefence  of  Great  Britain,  and 
of  every  other  nation,  make  a  formal  renunciation  of  the  pre- 
•tenfion,  that  "  free  ihips  (hall  make  free  goods,  and  enemy 
lhips  enemy  goods  :"  no  counter  declaration  is  heard  from  ei- 
ther houfe  of  congrefs. 

It  was  impoffible  to  give  a  more  full  fanclion  to  the  oppofite 
principle  than  was  given  by  this  conduct,  and  thefe  public  and. 
pofitive  declarations  of  our  government.  It  was  impoffible  more 
completely  to  abandon  the  favorite  ground.  It  is  puerile  to  at- 
tempt to  difcriminate  between  the  force  of  this  fpecies  of 
renunciation  and  that  of  an  admiflion  of  its  propriety  by  treaty. 
The  conduct:  of  a  government  avowed  and  explained,  as  to 
motives,  by  authentic  public  declarations,  may  afTertor  renounce 
a  pretenfion  as  effectually  as  its  compacts— Every  nation,  with 
whom  we  had  no  contrary  Stipulation,  could  fay  to  us  as  well 
before  as  fmce  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  "  your  govern- 
ment has  explicitly  admitted  that  free  (hips  do  not  make  free 
goods,  and  you  have  no  right  to  complain  of  our  not  obferving 
that  rule  towards  you."  Candour,  therefore,  would  oblige  us 
to  fay  that  the  treaty  has  left  this  point  where  it  found  it — that 
it  has  only  not  obtained  from  Great  Britain  a  conceifion  in  fa- 
vor of  an  innovation  upon  the  law  of  nations,  which  it  is  defir- 
able  to  eftablifh,  but  which  cannot  be  claimed  as  matter  of  right. 
Though,  therefore,  it  may  not  have  the  merit  of  (trengthening, 
it  has  not  the  demerit  of  weakening  the  ground. 

The  difference  in  our  pofition,  in  this  refpect,  before  and 
finee  the  treaty,  amounts  to  this,  that  before  the  treaty  the  go- 
vernment had  abandoned  the  ground  through  one  organ,  Mr. 
Jefferfon;  by  the  treaty,  it  continued  the  abandonment  through 
another  organ,  Mr.  Jay — if  we  coulider  the  organ  as  the  vo- 
luntary caufe  in  each  cafe,  (the  prefumption  of  which  is  equally 
fair  in  both  cafes)  and  if  there  be  any  blame,  it  falls  more  hea- 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXI. 


199 


viJy  on  Mr.  JefFerfon  than  on  Mr.  Jay,  for  the  former  founded 
and  made  the  retreat,  and  the  latter  only  did  not  advance  from 
the  disadvantageous  poft  to  which  he  had  retreated.  In  other 
words,  Mr.  Jay  did  only  not  recover  the  ground  which  Mr. 
JefFerfon  had  loft.  And  we  know  that,  in  general,  it  is  a  far 
more  difficult  talk  to  regain  than  to  keep  an  advantageous  po- 
fition. 

But,  in  truth,  no  blame  can  juftly  be  imputed  in  either  cafe. 
The  law  of  nations  was  againlt  the  rule  which  it  is  defired  to 
introduce.  The  United  States  could  not  have  infilled  upon  it  as 
matter  of  right;  and  in  point  of  policy  it  would  have  been 
madnefs  in  them  to  go  to  war,  to  fupport  an  innovation  upon 
the  pre-ellablifhed  law.  It  was  not  honorable  to  claim  a  right, 
and  fufier  it  to  be  infracted  without  refiftance.  It  is  not  for 
young  and  weak  nations  to  attempt  to  enforce  novelties  or 
pretenfions  of  equivocal  validity.  It  is  ft i  1  i  lefs  proper  for  them 
to  contend,  at  the  hazard  of  their  peace,  again  ft  the  clear  right 
of  others.  The  object  was  truly  not  of  moment  enough  to 
rifle  much  upon  it.  To  ufe  a  French  proverb,  "  The  p/av  icas 
not  ivorth  the  candle."  In  every  view,  therefore,  it  was  wife*- to 
defert  the  pretenfion. 

So  alfo,  in  the  midft  of  war,  like  that  in  which  Great  Bri- 
tain was  engaged,  it  were  prepofterous  to  have  expected,  that 
(he  would  have  acceded  to  a  new  rule,  which,  under  the  cir- 
cumftances  of  her  great  maritime  fuperiority,  would  have  ope- 
rated fo  much  more  conveniently  to  her  enemy  than  to  herfell. 
And  it  would  have  been  no  lefs  abfurd  to  have  made  her  accef- 
fion  to  that  rule  thej/ne  qua  non  of  an  arrangement,  otherwife 
expedient.  Here  again  the  play  would  not  have  been  worth  the 
candle. 

The  importance  of  the  rule  has  artfully  been  very  much  mag- 
nified, to  depreciate  proportionably  the  treaty,  for  not  eftablifh- 
ing  it.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  if  fomething  19  gained  by 
it,  fomething  is  alfo  given  up.  It  depends  on  incalculable  cir- 
cumllances,  whether,  in  a  particular  war,  molt  will  be  loft  or 
gained.  Yet  the  rule  is,  upon  the  whole,  a  convenient  one  to 
neutral  powers.  But  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  it  is  of  fo  great 
a  value,  as  that  the  United  States  ought  to  adopt  it  as,  a  maxim, 
never  to  make  a  treaty  of  commerce,  in  which  it  was  not  re- 
cognized. They  might  by  this  maxim  forego  the  advantages  of 
regulating  their  commercial  intercourfe  in  time  of  peace  with 
feveral  foreign  powers,  with  whom  they  have  extenfive  relations 
of  trade,  by  fixed  and  ufeful  conventional  rules,  and  (till  re- 
main  fubject  in  time  of  war  to  the  inconveniences  of  not  li.iv. 


loo  Camillus — No.  XXXI. 

ing  eftablifhed,  with  thofe  powers,  the  principle  to  which  they 
make  that  facrifice. 

Though,  therefore,  it  be  a  merit  to  a  certain  extent  in  a  treaty 
to  contain  this  principle,  it  is  not  a  pofitive  fault  or  blemifh, 
that  it  does  not  contain  it.  The  want  of  it  is  not. a  good  caufe 
of  objection  to  a  treaty  otherwife  eligible. 

Let  me  add,  too,  in  the  fpirit  of  Mr.  Jefferfon's  letter,  that 
however  it  may  be  our  wifh  to  eftablifh  the  rule  with  other 
nations  befides  thofe  with  whom  we  have  already  done  it,  this 
requires  their  confent  alfo,  of  courfe  their  conviction,  that  it 
is  their  intereft  to  confent ;  and  that,  confidering  the  obftacles 
which  lie  in  the  way,  the  attainment  of  the  object  muft  be  "  a 
ivork  of  time."  It  pre-fuppofes,  in  fome  of  the  principal  mari- 
time powers,  a  great  change  of  ideas,  which  is  not  to  be  looked 
for  very  fuddenly.  It  was  not,  therefore,  to  have  been  expected 
of  our  envoy,  that  he  was  to  have  accomplifhed  the  point  at 
fo  premature  and  fo  favorable  a  juncture. 

The  affertion,  that  he  has  abandoned  it,  is  made  in  too  un- 
qualified a  manner.  For  while  he  admits  the  operation  for  the 
present,  of  the  general  rule  of  the  law  of  nations,  he  has,  by 
the  1 2th  article,  engaged  Great  Britain  in  a  fhipulation,  that 
the  panics  will,  at  the  expiration  of  two  years  after  the  exist- 
ing u^r,  rtueiv  their  dijorjjituy  and  endeavour  to  agree  whether 
in  any,  and  what  cal"e&  neutral  veffels  fhali  protect  enemy's 
property.  It  is  true,  it  will  be  in  the  option  of  Great  Britain 
then,  to  agree  or  not  :  but  it  is  not  lefs  true  that  the  principle 
is  n  h  confent  of  Great   Britain  in  a  negotiable  ftate. 

So  tar  ,  ne  ground  has  been  retrieved. 

I  c  .vevev,  that  I  entertain   much  doubt  as  to  the 

a    fpeedy  general  efhiblifhment    of    the   rule, 

Vndly  ihips  (hall  make  friendly  goods,  and  enemy  (hips 

..  It  ib  a  rule  again  ft  which,  it  is  to  be  feared,  the  pre- 

naritime  power,  to  whatever  nation  this  character 

g,  will  be  apt  to  ftruggle  with  perfeverance  and  effect, 

fi-nce  it  wouki  tend   to   contract    materially   the  means  of  that 

power  to  annoy  and  diftrefs  her  enemies,  whofe  inferiority  on 

the  lea  would  naturally  caufe  their  commerce,  during  war,  to 

be  carried  on  in  neutral  bottoms.  This  confideration  will  account 

for  the  refiltance  of  Great  Britain  to  the  principle,  and  for  the 

endeavours  of  fome  other  powers  to  promote  it — and  it  deferves 

notice,  that  her  laft  treaty  with  France  was  feverely  affailed  by 

fome  of  the  chiefs  of  opposition,  for   containing  a  Stipulation 

in  favor  of  that  principle.  The  motive  for  confenting  to  it,  in 

this  inftance,  probably   was,  that  the  ftipulation  was  likely  to 

be  rendered,  in  a  great  degree,  nugatory  by  the  relative  Situation 


Camillus— No.  XXXI.  201 

of  the  two  nations,  which,  in  almoft  any  war  in  which  one  of 
the  two  was  engaged  on  one  fide,  would  probably  render  the 
Other  a  party  on  the  oppofite  fide. 

If  thefe  conjectures  be  right,  there  is  a  reflection  which 
leffens  much  the  value  of  ftipulations  in  favor  of  the  rule ;  that 
fo  long  as  one  or  more  of  the  maritime  powers  difavow  it, 
there  will  be  a  ftrong  temptation  to  depart  from  a  fcrupulous  ob- 
fervance  of  fuch  ftipulations,  as  we,  in  relation  to  France, 
experienced  in  the  prefent  war. 

In  the  courfe  of  trte  arguments  againft  the  17th  .  I  .  r 
virtually  admitting  the  right  of  fearch  in  time  of  >- 

jecTLors  have  had  the  temerity  to  cite  the  opiti  ig 

being  oppofed  to  that  right;  and  a  mutilated  qui  n 

an  appearance  of  truth  to  the  affertion.   It  has  ben  re 

lhown,  by  paffages  extracted  from  his  work,   thai  lion, 

fo  far  from  denying  explicitly,  fupports  the  rig v  fo  fearch. 
But  it  may  be  ufeful  to  examine  the  part  of  ic  whicii  lias  been 
tortured  into  a  contrary  inference. 

After  affirming  the  right  of  fearch  (B.  3.  chap.  7,  8.  14) 
he  proceeds  thus,  "  but  to  avoid  inconveniencies,  violence,  and 
every  other  irregularity,  the  manner  of  the  fearch  is  fettled  in 
the  treaties  of  navigation  and  commerce.  According  to  the  pre- 
fent cujfam,  credit  is  to  be  given  to  certificates  and  bills  of  lad- 
ing produced  by  the  matter  of  the  fliip."  Hence  it  is  alleged 
the  right  to  fearch  is  turned  into  the  right  of  infpedting  the 
{hip's  papers,  which,  being  entitled  to  credit,  are  to  preclude 
further  fcrutiny. 

But  what  immediately  follows,  deftroys  this  conclufion  !  the 
words  "  unlefs  any  ground  appear  in  them,  or  there  be  very 
good  reafons  for  fufpecling  their  validity,"  are  fubjoined  to  the 
claufe  juft  quoted.  This  admits  clearly,  that  the  fhip's  papers 
are  not  to  be  conclufive — But  that,  upon  jult  caufe  of  fufpicion, 
the  papers  may  be  difregarded,  and  the  right  of  fearch  may  be 
exercifed. 

Who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  credit  due  to  the  papers  and 
of  the  juft  caufe  of  fufpicion  ?  Manifestly  the  officer  of  the 
belligerent  party,  who  vifits  the  neutral  veffel.  Then  what  does 
the  whole  amount  to  ? — Merely  this — That  fhip's  papers  are 
entitled  to  a  certain  degree  of  refpect  and  credit ;  how  much,  is 
left  to  the  difcretion  of  the  officer  of  the  belligerent  party  ! — who, 
if  he  be  not  fatisfied  of  the  fairnefs  and  validity  ot  the  papers, 
may  proceed  to  their  verification,  by  a  more  itrict.  and  particular 
fearch,  and  then  if  he  ftill  fees,  or  fuppoles  he  fees,juli  caufe  of 
fufpicion,  he  may  carry  the  veffel  into  a  port  of  his  own  country, 
for  judicial   investigation — In  doing  this,  he  acts  at  his  peril, 


202  Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXXL 

and  for  an  abufe  of  his  difcretion  expofes  himfelf  to  damages 
and  other  puniihment. 

This  is  the  true  and  evident  fenfe  of  Vattel,  and  it  agrees 
with  the  doctrine  advocated  in  thefe  papers,  and,  I  will  add, 
with  the  treaty  under  examination. 

The  17th  article  admits,  that  the  veflels  of  each  party  for 
jujl  caufe  of  fufpicion  of  having  on  board  enemy's  property, 
or  of  carrying  to  the  enemy  contraband  articles,  may  be  cap- 
tured or  detained,  and  carried  to  the  neareft  and  molt  conve- 
nient port  of  the  belligerent  party,  to  the  end  that  enemy's  pro- 
perty and  contraband  articles  on  board  may  become  lawful 
prize.  But  fo  far  from  countenancing  any  proceeding  without 
jajl  caufe  of  fufpicon,  or  from  exonerating  the  officer  of  the 
belligerent  party  from  a  refponfibility  for  fuch  proceeding, 
it  leaves  the  law  of  nations,  in  this  particular,  in  full  force, 
and  contemplating  that  fuch  officer  ihallbe  liable  for  damages, 
when  he  proceeds  without  jufl  caufe  of  fufpicion,  provides  that 
all  proper  meafures  (hall  be  taken  to  prevent  delay  in  deciding  the  , 
cafes  of  fhips  or  cargoes  brought  in  for  adjudication,  or  in  the 
payment  or  recovery  of  any  indemnification  adjudged  or  agreed  to  be 
paid  to  the  mafters  or  owners  offuchfjips.  Befides  which,  the  19th 
article  ftipulates,  in  order  that  more  abundant  care  may  be  taken 
for  the  fecurity  of  the  refpe&ive  fubjects  and  citizens  of  the 
contracting  parties,  and  to  prevent  their  fuffering  injuries  by  the 
men  of  war  and  privateers  of  either  party,  that  the  command- 
ers of  fhips  of  war  and  privateers,  lhall  forbear  doing  any  da- 
mage to  thofe  of  the  other  party,  committing  any  outrage 
againft  them  •,  and  that  if  they  acYto  the  contrary,  they  ft hall  be 
pumped,  and  (hall  alfo  be  bound  in  their  perfons  and  eftates,r/<? 
make  fatisfablion  and  reparation  for  all  damages,  and  the  interejl 
thereof,  of  whatever  nature  the  f aid  damages  may  be.  And  further, 
after  eftablifhing  that  the  commanders  of  privateers  (hall,  be- 
fore they  are  commiflioned,  give  fecurity  to  fatisfy  all  damages 
and  injuries,  it  adds,  that  in  all  cafes  of  aggreffions  their  com- 
miffions  fhall  be  revoked  and  annulled. 

Thefe  provifions  not  only  conform  to,  and  corroborate  the 
injunctions  of  the  laws  of  nations:  but  they  refute  the  afTertion, 
that  the  treaty  is  altogether  deficient  in  precautions  for  guard- 
ing neutral  rights  ;  fince  thofe  above-mentioned  are  among  the 
mod  efficacious. — It  is  not  prefumable  that  any  ftipulationshave 
been  or  can  be  made  which  will  take  away  all  difcretion  from 
the  marine  officers  of  the  belligerent  parties;  for  this  would 
be  a  total  furrender  of  the  rights  of  belligerent  to  neutral  na- 
tions, and  fo  long  as  any  difcretion  is  left,  its  right  or  wrong 
exercife  will  depend  on  the  perfonal  character  of  each  officer: 


Camillus — No.  XXXI.  203 

and  abufes  can  only  be  reftrained  by  the  penalties  that  await 
them.  Thole  ftipulations  of  treaties,  then,  which  re-inforce  the 
laws  of  nations  as  to  the  infliction  of  penalties,  are  the  molt 
effectual  of  the  precautions  which  treaties  can  adopt  for  the 
fecurity  of  neutral  rights;  and  in  this  particular  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  is  to  the  full  as  provident  as  our  other  treaties.  In 
one  point  I  believe  it  is  more  (o  ;  for  it  exprefsly  ftipulates  a 
revocation  of  the  commiflions  of  the  commanders  of  privateers, 
for  the  aggreffions  they  may  commit. 

Is  not  the  palTage  lafl  cited  from  Vattel  a  true  commentary 
on  thofe  ftipulations,  for  regulating  and  mitigating  the  right  of 
fearch,  which  are  found  in  our  own  and  other  treaties  ?  Do 
they  not  all  intend  to  referve  to  the  belligerent  party  a  right  of 
judging  of  the  validity  and  fidelity  or  the  papers  to  be  exhibited, 
and  of  extending  the  fearch  or  not,  according  to  the  circum- 
ftances  of  juft  fuipicion  which  do  or  do  not  appear  ?  and  if  this 
be  their  true  conitruction,  as  it  certainly  is  their  conftruclion  in 
practice,  which  our  own  experience  teftifies,  to  what,  after  all, 
do  they  amount,  more  than  without  them  the  laws  of  nations, 
as  univerfally  recognized,  of  themfelves  pronounce  ?  What 
real  fecurity  do  they  afford  more  than  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  affords  ? 

It  is  much  to  be  fufpedted,  that  there  will  always  be  found 
advantages  effentially  nominal,  operating  or  not  according  to 
the  itrength  or  weaknefs  of  the  neutral  party  ;  which,  if  llrong, 
will  find  abundant  foundation  in  the  acknowledged  laws  of 
nations  on  which  to  reft  the  protection  of  its  rights* 

It  has  been  faid  to  be  juft  matter  of  furprize,  that  thefe  pre-» 
cautions  fhould  have  no  place  in  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain, 
whofe  conduct  on  the  feas,  fo  particularly  fuggefted  and  en- 
forced every  guard  to  our  rights  that  could  be  reafonably  infilled 
on.  Obfervations  of  this  kind  a  flume  conftantly  the  fuppofition, 
that  we  had  it  in  our  power  to  fafhion  every  provision  of  the 
treaty  exactly  to  our  own  talte,  and  that  the  ideas  of  the  other 
contracting  party  were  to  have  no  influence  even  upon  the  mi- 
nor features  of  the  contract.  But  this  fuppofition  isabfurd; 
and  a  treaty  may  ftill  be  entitled  to  our  approbation,  which 
adjufts  acceptably  the  great  points  of  interelt,  though  in  fome 
of  its  details  it  falls  fhort  of  our  defires.  Nor  can  anv  well-in- 
formed man  fincerely  deny  that  it  was  to  have  been  expected, 
that  an  adjuftment  of  the  particulars  in  queftion,  wtTuld  fall 
Ihort  of  our  ideas.  It  may  be  anfwered,  that  we  were  then  at 
liberty  not  to  make  the  treaty  ;  fo  we  were  ;  but  does  it  follow 
that  it  would  have  been  wife  to  fplit  on  fuch  points  ? — upon  a 
juft  eftimate,  their  intrinfic  value  i$  very  moderate. 

CAMILLUS. 


C    204    3 

No.  XXXII. 

TH  E  eighteenth  article  of  the  treaty,  which  regulates 
the  fubjett  of  contraband,  has  been  grievouily  mifrepre- 
fented  ;  the  objections  uied  agamft  it  with  moft  acrimony,  are 
difingenuousand  unfounded!  Yet  while  I  make  this  afiertion, 
which,  I  flatter  myfelf,  I  fhall  be  able  to  prove,  I  fhall  not  pre- 
tend to  maintain  that  it  is  an  article  completely  fatisfattory.  I 
even  admit  that  it  has  one  unpleafant  ingredient  in  ic,  and  I  am 
convinced  that  our  envoy  muft  have  confented  to  it  with  re- 
luctance. 

But  while  candour  demands  this  conceffion,  it  equally  admo- 
nifhes  us,  that,  under  the  circumftances  of  the  moment,  the 
points  in  this  refpect  to  be  adjufted  were  peculiarly  unmanage- 
able— that  the  pofition  of  the  other  party  rendered  an  arrange- 
ment, entirely  agreeable  to  us,  impracticable ;  that  without 
compromise  nothing  could  have  been  regulated  ;  that  the  article 
made  no  change  for  the  worfe  in  our  prior  fituation,  but  in 
fome  particulars  made  our  ground  better ;  and  that  eftimating 
truly  the  relative  circumftances  of  the  parties,  there  is  no  pro- 
bability that  any  thing  more  acceptable  could  have  been  efta- 
blHhed. 

I  will  add,  that  a  degree  of  imperfection,  which  may  fairly 
be  attributed  to  this  article,  is  far  from  being  of  fuch  import- 
ance, as,  on  folid  calculations,  ought  to  defeat  the  treaty — No 
clear  right  is  abandoned,  no  material  intereft  .of  the  nation 
injured. 

It  is  one  thing,  whether  every  part  of  the  treaty  be  fatisfac- 
tory — .another,  and  a  very  different  thing,  whether  in  the  ag- 
gregate it  be  eligible  or  not,  and  ought  to  be  accepted  or  re- 
jected. Nations  could  never  make  contracts  with  one  another, 
if  each  were  to  require  that  every  part  of  it  fhould  be  adjufted 
by  its  own  ftandard  of  right  and  expediency.  The  true  quef- 
tion  always  is  upon  the  collective  merits  of  the  inftrument; 
whether,  upon  the  whole,  it  reafonably  accommodates  the 
opinions  and  interefts  of  the  parties.  Tried  by  this  teft,  the 
treaty  negociated  with  Great  Britain,  Fully  juft —  s  the  ■  .  jpt- 
ance  of  it  by  the  Conftituted  aumorities  of  our  country,  and 
claims  the  acquiefcence  of  every  good  citizen. 

The  moft  laboured,  and,  at  ti.    {  ..      time,  the  moft  falfe  of 

the  charges  againlt  the  eighte* aruae  is,  that  it  allows  pro- 

vifions  to  be  contr?.K,  d  in  cafes  not  heretofore  warranted  by 
the  laws  of  rial  ^us,  and  refers  to  the  belligerent  party,  the 
decifion  of  what  thofe  cafes  are. — This  is  the  general  form  of 


Ca  mill  us— No.  XXXII.  205 

the  charge.  The  draft  of  a  petition  to  the  legifiature  of  Virgi- 
nia, reduces  it  to  this  fhape.  The  treaty  "  exprefsly  admits, 
that  provifions  are  to  be  held  contraband  in  cafes  other  than 
when  bound  to  an  inverted  place,  and  impliedly  admits,  that 
fuch  cafes  exiil  at  prefent." 

The  firft  is  a  palpable  untruth,  which  may  be  detected  by  a 
bare  perufal  of  the  article.— The  laft  is  an  untrue  inference, 
impregnated  with  the  malignant  insinuation  that  there  was  ;•» 
defign  to  Sanction  the  unwarrantable  pretenfion  of  a  right  to 
inflict  famine  on  a  whole  nation. 

Before  we  proceed  to  an  analyfis  of  the  article,  let  us  review 
the  prior  Situation  of  the  parties.  Great  Britain,  it  is  known, 
had  taken  and  acted  upon  the  ground,  that  the  had  a  right  to 
Hop  and  detain,  on  payment  for  them,  provifions  belonging  to 
neutrals,  going  to  the  dominions  of  France.  For  this  violent 
and  impolitic  meafure,  which  the  final  opinion  of  mankind 
will  certainly  condemn,  fhe  found  colour,  in  the  fayings  of  fome 
writers  of  reputation,  on  public  laws. 

A  paffage  of  this  kind,  from  Vattel,  has  been  more  than 
once  quoted,  in  thefe  terms,  "  Commodities,  particularly  ufed, 
in  war,  and  the  importation  of  which,  to  an  enemy,  is  prohi-» 
bited,  are  called  contraband  goods.  Such  are  military  and  naval 
(lores,  timber,  horfes,  an d  even  provifions  in  certain  junctures, 
iv I: en  there  arc  hopes  of  reducing  the  enemy  by  famine."  Heine- 
cius*  countenances  the  fame  opinion,  and  even  Grotius  feems 
to  lean  towards  it.f 

The  United  Stater,  with  reafon,  difputed  this  conftrutliori 
of  the  law  of  nations !  restraining  the  general  propositions 
which  appear  to  favor  it,  to  thofc  cafes  in  which  the  chance  o£ 
reducing  by  famine  was  manfefled  and  palpable,  fuch  as  the 
Cafes  of  particular  places,  bona  ride,  befieged,  blockaded  or  in- 
verted. Fhe  government  accordingly  remonltrated  againit  the 
proceeding  of  Great  Britain}  and  made  every  effort  againll  it 
which  prudence,  in  the  thert  pofture  of  affairs,  would  permit. 
The  order  for  feizing  provifions^  was,  after  a  time,  revoked. 

In  this  State  our  envoy  found  the  bufinefs,  pending  the  very- 
War  in  which  Great  Britain  had  exercifed  the  pretenfion,  with 
the  fame  administration  which  had  done  it,  was  it  to  have  been 
expected  that  fhe  would,  in  a  treaty  with  us,  even  virtually  or 
impliedly  have  acknowledged  the  injuftice  or  impropriety  of 
the  conduct  ?  Here  was  no  efcape,  as  in  the  inltance  of  the 
Vol.  III.  Ff 

*  Law  of  nature  and  nations.  B.  Zt  C.  9.  S.  201.  Navibus  ob  ve£h 
t  Book  III.  Chap.   I.  and  V.  .^.  Chap.  I.  and  X, 


So6  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXII. 

order  of  the  6th  of  November,  1 793>  in  the  mifconceptions  of 
her  officers.  The  queition  was  to  condemn  a  deliberate  and  un- 
ambiguous a£t  of  the  administration  itfelf.  The  pride,  the 
reputation,  and  the  interefl  of  that  adminiflration  forbade  it. 

On  our  fide,  to  admit  the  pretenfions  of  Great  Britain  was 
ftill  more  impoihble. — We  had  every  inducement  of  character, 
right,  and  intereit  againft  it.  What  was  the  natural  and  only 
iffue  out  of  this  embarraffment  ?  Plainly,  to  leave  the  point 
unfettled  ;  to  get  rid  of  it;  to  let  it  remain  fubftantially  where 
it  was  before  the  tieaty.  This,  I  have  good  ground  to  believe, 
was  the  real  underflanding  of  the  two  negociators  ;  and  the 
article  has  fulfilled  that  view. 

After  enumerating  fpecifically  what  articles  fhall  be  deemed 
contraband,  it  proceeds  thus,  "  And  whereas  the  difficulty  of 
agreeing  on  the  precife  cafes,  in  which  alone  provifions  and  ether 
articles,  not  generally  contraband,  may  be  regarded  as  fuch, 
renders  it  expedient  to  provide  againit  the  inconveniencies  and 
mifunderftandings  which  might  thence  arife :  It  is  further 
agreed,  that  whenever  any  fuch  articles,  fo  becoming  contra- 
band according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  fhall,  for  that  reafon,  be 
feized,  the  fame  fhall  not  be  confifcated,  but  the  owners  thereof 
ill  all  befpeedily  and  completely  indemnified;  and  the  captors,  or, 
in  their  default,  the  government  under  whofe  authority  they 
act,  fhall  pay  to  the  mafters  or  owners  of  fuch  veflels,  the  full 
value  of  all  articles  with  a  reasonable  mercantile  profit  thereon* 
together  with  the  freight  and  alio  the  demurrage,  incident  to 
fuch  detention." 

The  difficulty  of  agreeing  on  the  precife  cafes  in  which  arti- 
cles, not  generally  contraband,  become  fo,  from  particular  cir- 
cumstances, is  cxprefsly  affigned  as  the  motive  to  the  Stipulation 
which  follows. — This  excludes  the  fuppoiition  that  any  cafes 
whatever  were  intended  to  be  admitted  or  agreed.  But  this  dif- 
ficulty rendered  it  expedient  to  provide  againit  the  inconvenien- 
cies and  mifunderftandings  which  might  thence  arife — a  provi- 
sion, with  this  view,  is,  therefore,  made,  which  is  that  of 
liberal  compenfation  for  the  articles  taken — The  evident  intent 
of  this  provifion  is,  that  in  doubtful  cafes,  the  inconveniencies 
to  the  neutral  party  being  obviated  or  leffened  by  compenfation, 
there  may  be  the  lefs  caufe  or  temptation  to  controverfy  and 
rupture— the  affair  may  be  the  more  fufceptible  of  negociation 
and  accommodation.  More  than  this  cannot  be  pretended  ;  be- 
caufe  it  is  further  agreed,  "  that  whenever  any  fuch  articles, 
fo  become  contraband,  according  to  the  exifling  laws  of  nations, 
fhall,  for  that  reafon,  be  feized,  the  fame  fbull  not  be  confif- 


Cam  ill  us— -No.  XXXIL  207 

<ated,  but  the  owners  thereof  fhall  be  fpeedily  and  completely 
indemnified,"  &c. 

Thus  the  criterion  of  the  cafes,  In  which  articles,  not  gene- 
rally contraband,  may,  from  particular  circumstances,  become 
fo,  isexprefsiy  the  exi/Iing  law  of  nations  ;  in  other  words,  the 
Jaw  of  nations  at  the  time  the  tranfuction  happens.  When 
thefe  laws  pronounce  them  contraband,  they  may,  for  that  rea- 
ion,  be  feized ;  when  otherwife,  they  may  not  be  feized. 
Each  party  is  as  free  as  the  other  to  decide  whether  the  laws  of 
nations  do,  in  the  given  cafe,  pronounce  them  contraband  or 
not,  and  neither  is  obliged  to  be  governed  by  the  opinion  of  the 
other.  If  one  party,  on  a  falfe  pretext  of  being  authorized  by 
the  laws  of  nations,  makes  a  feizure,  the  other  is  at  full  liberty 
to  contelt  it,  to  appeal  to  thofe  laws,  and,  if  it  thinks  fit,  to  op- 
pofe,  even  to  reprif.ils  and  war.  This  is  the  exprefs  tenor  of  the 
provifion — there  is  nothing  to  the  contrary  ;  nothing  that  nar* 
rows  the  ground  ;  nothing  that  warrants  either  party  in  mak- 
ing a  feizure,  which  the  laws  of  nations,  independent  of  the 
treaty,  permits;  nothing  which  obliges  cither  party  to  fubmit 
to  one,  when  it  is  of  opinion  the  Jaw  of  nations  has  been  vio- 
lated by  it. 

But  as  liberal  compenfation  is  to  be  made  in  every  cafe  of 
feizure,  whereof  difference  of  opinion  happens,  it  will  become 
a  queflion  of  prudence  and  expediency,  whether  to  be  fatis- 
fied  with  the  compenfation,  or  to  feek  further  redrefs.  The 
provifion  will,  in  doubtful  cafes,  render  an  accommodation  of 
opinion  the  more  eafy,  and,  as  a  circumitance  conducing  to  the 
prefervation  of  peace,  is  a  valuable  ingredient  in  the  treaty. 
A  very  different  phrafeology  was  to  have  been  expected,  if  the 
intention  had  been,  to  leave  each  party  at  liberty  to  feize,  agree- 
ably to  its  own  opinion  of  the  law  of  nations,  upon  the  condi- 
tion of  making  compenfation — The  Stipulation  would  thus 
have  been:  "  It  is  agreed,  that  whenever  either  of  the  contract- 
ing parties  fhall  feize  any  fuch  articles  (o  becoming  contraband, 
and  which  fliall,  for  that  reafon,  be  feized  j"  this  makes,  not  the 
opinion  of  either  party,  but  the  fact  of  the  articles  having  become 
contraband  by  the  laws  of  nations,  the  condition  of  the  fei- 
zure. 

A  cavil  has  arifen  on  the  term  "  exiting"  ™  ^  lt  had  the 
effect  of  enabling  one  of  the  parties  to  make  a  law  of  nations. 
for  the  occafion.  But  this  is  a  mere  cavil. 

No  one  nation  can  make  a  law  of  nations;  no  pofaiverregu- 
lation  of  one  ftate,  or  of  a  partial  nomination  of  ilates,  can  pre- 
tend to  this  character.  A  law  of  nations  is  a  law  which  A  1  ■ 
turc,  agreement,  or  ufrge  has  eftabJifhed  between  nationo ;  Di 


2oS  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXII. 

this  may  vary  from  one  period  to  another  by  agreement  or 
ufage,  the  article  very  properly  ufes  the  term  "exifting,"  to  denote 
that  law,  which  at  the  time  the  tranfa&ion  may  happen,  (hall 
be  then  the  law  of  nations.  This  is  a  plain  and  obvious  ufe  of 
the  term,  which  nothing  but  a  fpirit  of  mifreprefentation  could 
have  perverted  to  a  different  meaning. 

The  argument  againrt  the  foregoing  conrtru£tion  is  in  fub- 
ftance  this  (viz.)  it  is  now  a  fettled  docftrine  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions, that  provifions  and  other  articles,  not  generally  contra- 
band, can  only  become  fo  when  going  to  a  place  befieged, 
blockaded,  or  inverted — cafes  of  this  kind  are  fully  provided  for 
in  afubfequentpartof  the  article;  the  implication  therefore  is, 
that  fomething  more  was  intended  to  be  embraced  in  the  ante- 
cedent  part. 

Let  us  firfh  examine  the  fact,  whether  all  the  cafes  of  that 
kind  are  comprehended  in  the  fubfequent  part  of  the  article.  I 
fay  they  are  not — the  remaining  claufe  of  the  article  divides 
itfelf  into  two  parts.  The  firft  defenbes  the  cafe  of  a  veffel  fail- 
ing for  a  port  or  place  belonging  to  any  enemy,  without  know- 
ing that  the  fame  is ei'her befieged,  blockaded,  or  inverted;  and 
provides,  that,  in  fuch  cafe,  the  veiTelrnaybe  turned  away,  but 
not  detained,  nor  her  cargo,  if  not  contraband,  confifcated, 
unlefs  after  notice  fhe  fhall  again  attempt  to  enter:  The  fecond 
defcribes  the  cafe  of  a  veffel,  or  goods,  which  had  entered  into 
fuch  port  or  place  before  it  was  befieged,  blockaded,  or  inverted, 
and  declares  that  the  one  or  the  other  fhall  not  be  liable  to  confif- 
cation,  but  fhall  be  reftored  to  the  owners  thereof.  Thefe  are 
the  only  cafes  defcribed  or  provided  for.  A  third,  which  occurs 
on  the  flighted  reflection,  is  not  mentioned  :  the  cafe  of  a  vef- 
fel going  to  a  port  or  place  which  is  befieged,  blockaded  or  in- 
verted, with  notice  of  its  being  in  that  ftate  when  fhe  com- 
mences her  voyage,  or  previous  to  her  receiving  notice  from 
the  befieging,  blockading,  or  inverting  party.  This  is  left  to  the 
operation  of  the  general  law  of  nations,  except  fo  far  as  it 
may  be  affected  in  refpecSt  to  compenfation  by  the  antecedent 
claufe.  Thus  the  facT:,  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  argument, 
fails,  and  with  it,  of  courfe,  the  argument  itfelf. 

But  had  this  been  otherwife,  the  conclufion  would  ftill  have 
been  erroneous — the  two  claufes  are  entirely  independent  of 
each  other,  and  though  they  might  both  contemplate  the  fame 
cafes  in  whole,  or  in  part,  they  do  it  with  an  eye  to  very  dif- 
ferent purpofes. 

The  object  of  the  firft  is  to  lefTen  the  danger  of  mifunder- 
ftanding,  by  eftablifhing  this  general  rule,  that  wherever  articles, 
wot  commonly  contraband,  become  fo  from  particular  circum- 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXXII.  209 

(lances,  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  they  (hall  (till  not  be 
confifcated,  but,  when  feized,  the  owners  of  them  (hall  be  in- 
demnified. 

The  object:  of  the  laft  is  to  regulate  fome  fpecial  confe- 
quences  with  regard  to  veffels  and  goods  going  to,  or  which 
had  previously  gone  to  places  befieged,  blockaded,  or  inverted; 
and  in  refpect  to  which  the  difpofitions  of  the  laws  of  nations 
may  have  been  deemed  doubtful  or  too  rigorous.  Thus  iris, 
held,  that  the  laws  of  nations  permit  the  confiscation  of  (hips 
and  goods  going  to  places  befieged,  blockaded,  or  inverted  ;  but 
this  claufe  decides,  that  if  going  without  notice,  lb  far  from 
being  confifcated,  they  (hall  not  even  be  detained,  but  fhail  be 
permitted  to  go  whitherfoevcr  they  pleafe.  If  they  perfitt  after 
notice,  then  the  contumacy  fhalt  oe  punifhed  with  confiscation. 
In  both  initances  the  confequence  is  entirely  different  from 
every  thing  in  the  antecedent  claufe. 

There,  there  is  feizure,  with  compenfation.  Here,  in  one 
inltance,  feizure  is  forbidden,  and  pcrmilfion  to  go  el  fe  where  ia 
enjoined.  In  the  other  initances,  the  offending  things  are  con- 
fifcated, which  excludes  the  idea  of  compenfation.  Again,  the 
laft  part  of  the  lail  claufe.  ltipulatcs  in  the  cafe,  which  it  fup- 
pofes,  the  refloration  of  the  property  to  its  owners,  and  fo  ex- 
cludes both  feizure  and  compenfation.  Hence  it  is  apparent  the 
objects  of  the  two  claufes  are  entirely  foreign  to  each  other, 
and  that  no  argument  nor  inference  whatever  c2.11  be  drawn 
from  the  one  to  the  other. 

If  it  be  afked,  what  other  cafes  there  can  be,  except  thole 
of  places  befieged,  blockaded,  or  invelted  ?  and  if  none  other, 
what  difficulty  in  defining  them  ?  why  leave  the  point  fo  vague 
and  indeterminate?  One  anfwer,  which  indeed  has  already 
been  given  in  fubflance,  is,  that  the  fituation  of  one  of  the 
parties  prevented  an  agreement  at  the  time  ;  that  not  being  able 
to  agree,  they  could  not  define  ;  and  the  alternative  was  to 
avoid  definition — The  want  of  definition  only  argues  want  of 
agreement.  It  is  ftrange  logic  to  aflert,  that  this  or  that  is  ad- 
mitted, becaufe  nothing  is  defined. 

Another  anfwer  is,  that  even  if  the  parties  had  been  agreed 
that  there  were  no  other  cafes  than  thole  of  befieged,  block- 
aded, or  invefted  places,  ltill  there  would  have  remained  much 
room  for  difpute  about  the  precife  cafes,  owing  to  the  imprac- 
ticability of  defining  what  is  a  befieged,  blockaded,  or  invciled 
place.  About  this  there  has  been  frequent  controverfy;  and  the 
fact  is  to  complicated,  puts  on  fuch  a  variety  of  fhapes,  that  no 
definition  can  well  be  devifed,  which  will  fuit  all.  Thence  na- 
tions, in  thfir  compacts   with  each  other,  frequently  do  not 


2io  Ca  mill  us— -No.  XXXIL 

attempt  one  ;  and  where  the  attempt  has  been  made,  it  has 
left  almolt  as  much  room  for  difpute  about  the  definition  as  there 
was  about  the  thing. 

Moreover,  is  it  impoflible  to  conceive  other  cafes  than  thofe 
mentioned  above,  in  which  provifions  and  other  articles  not 
generally  contraband  might,  on  rational  grounds,  be  deemed 
l'o  ?  What  if  they  were  going  exprefsly,  and  with  notice,  to  a 
befieging  army,  whereby  it  might  obtain  a  fupply  effential  to 
the  fuccefs  of  its  operations  ?  Is  there  no  doubt  that  it  would 
be  juftifiable  in  fuch  cafe  to  feize  them  ?  Can  the  liberty  of 
trade  be  faid  to  apply  to  any  inftance  of  direct  and  immediate 
aid  to  a  military  expedition  ?  It  would  be  at  leaft  a  fingular 
effect  of  the  rule,  if  provifions  could  be  carried  without  inter- 
ruption for  the  fupply  of  a  Spanifh  army  befieging  Gibraltar, 
when,  if  deftined  for  the  fupply  of  the  garrifon  in  that  place, 
they  might,  of  right,  be  feized  by  a  Spanifh  fleet. 

The  calumniators  of  the  article  have  not  had  the  candour  to 
notice  that  it  is  not  confined  to  provifions,  but  fpeaks  of  provi- 
fions and  other  articles.  Even  this  is  an  ingredient  which  com- 
bats the  fuppofition  that  countenance  was  intended  to  be  given 
to  the  pretenfion  of  Great  Britain  with  regard  to  provifions', 
which,  depending  on  a  reafon  peculiar  to  itfelf,  cannot  be  deem- 
ed to  be  fupported  by  a  claufe  including  orther  articles,  to  which 
that  reafon  is  entirely  inapplicable. 

There  is  one  more  obfervation  which  has  been  made  againft 
this  part  of  the  article  which  may  deferve  a  moment's  attention. 
It  is  this,  that  though  the  true  meaning  of  the  claufe,  be  fuch 
as  I  contend  for,  ftill  theexiftence  of  it  affords  to  Great  Britain 
a  pretext  for  abufe  which  fhe  may  improve  to  our  difadvantage. 
I  anfvver,  it  is  difficult  to  guard  againft  all  the  perverfions  of  a 
contract  which  ill  faith  may  fuggeft.  But  we  have  the  fame 
fecurity  againft  abufes  of  this  fort,  which  wc  have  againft 
thofe  of  other  kinds,  namely,  the  right  of  judging  for  ourfelves, 
and  the  power  of  caufing  our  rights  to  be  refpected.  We  have 
this  plain  and  decifive  reply  to  make,  to  any  uncandid  construc- 
tion which  Great  Britain  may,  at  any  time,  endeavour  to  raife, 
«'  The  article  pointedly  and  explicitly  makes  the  exifting  law  of 
nations,  the  ftandard  of  the  cafes  in  which  you  may  rightfully 
feize  provifions  and  other  articles  not  generally  contraband. 
This  law  does  not  authorize  the  feizure  in  the  inftance  in  que- 
stion ;  you  have  confequenrly  no  warrant  under  the  treaty  for 
what  you  do.'' 

The  fame  difingenuous  fpirit  which  tinctures  all  the  conduct 
of  the  adverfaries  of  the  treaty,  has  been  hardy  enough  to  im- 


Camilltjs— No.  XXXIH.  ut 

pure  to  it  the  lafl  order  of  Great  Britain,  to  feize  provifions  go- 
ing to  the  dominions  of  France. 

Strange,  that  an  order  iflued  before  the  treaty  had  ever  been  con- 
fidered  in  this  country,  and  embracing  the  other  neutral  powers 
befides  the  United  States,  fhould  be  reprefented  as  the  fruit  of 
that  inftrument  !*  The  appearances  are,  that  a  motive  no  lefa 
imperious  than  that  of  impending  fcarcity,  has  great  fhare  in 
dictating  the  meafure,  and  time,  I  am  perfuaded,  will  prove 
that  it  will  not  ever  be  pretended  to  juitify  it  by  any  thing  in 
the  treaty. 

CAMILLUS. 


No.  XXXIH. 


TH  E  courfe  thu9  far  purfued  in  the  difcuffion  of  the  1 8th 
article,  has  inverted  the  order  of  it,  as  it  (lands  in  the 
treaty.  It  is  compofed  of  three  claufes  ;  the  two  lad  of  which 
have  been  firft  examined — I  thought  it  advifeable,  in  the  outfet> 
to  difpofe  of  an  objection  which  has  been  the  principal  fource 
of  clamour. 

The  firft  claufc  of  that  which  remains  to  be  examined,  enu- 
merates the  articles,  which,  it  is  agreed,  fhall  be  deemed  contra- 
band of  war.  Thefe  are,  "  all  arms,  and  implements  ferving  for 
the  purpofe  of  war,  fuch  as  cannon,  mufquets,  mortars,  pe- 
tards, bombs,  grenadoes,  carcafes,  faucifles,  carriages  for  can- 
non, mufquet-refts,  bandoliers,  gunpowder,  match,  falt-petre, 
balls,  pikes,  fwords,  head-pieces,  cuirafles,  halberts,  lances, 
javelins,  horfe  furniture,  holders,  belts,  and  generally  all  other 
implements  of  war;  as  alfo  timber  for  {hip-building,  tar  or 
rofin,  copper  in  iheets,  fails,  hemp,  and  cordage,  and  generally 
whatever  may  ferve  diredlly  to  the  equipment  of  vedels,  un- 
wrought  iron  and  fir  planks  only  excepted." 

All  which  articles  are  declared  to  be  jult  object's  of  confifca- 
tion,  when  attempted  to  be  carried  to  any  enemy  of  either 
party. 

It  is  well  underftood,  that  war  abridges  the  liberty  of  trade, 
of  neutral  nations;  and  that  it  is  not  lawful  for  them  to  fupply 
either  of  two  belligerent  parties  with  any  article  deemed  con- 
traband of  war  ;   nor  may  they  fupply  any  article  whatever  to  a 

•  As  rcafonable  would  it  be  to  place  to  its  account  the  fimilar  order  whic'k 
was  ifiuad  before  ;he  million  of  an  envoy  was  thought  of. 


-.a  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXItt. 

place  befieged,  blockaded  or  inverted.  The  former  cafe  includes 
a  fpecial  catalogue  of  articles  which  have  an  immediate  refer-" 
ence  to  war —  Hie  latter  extends  to  all  kinds  of  goods  and 
merchandize.  The  penalty  in  both  cafes  is  confifcation.  . 

Thefe  pofitions  have  not  been  difputed.  The  only  queftion 
which  has  been  or  can  be  railed,  mult  refpetl  the  enumeration 
of  the  articles  which  are  to  be  confidered  as  contraband. 

In  comparing  the  enumeration  in  the  prefent  treaty,  with 
that  of  our  former  treaties,  we  find  the  differences  to  be  thefe. 
Our  former  treaties  include  "  horfesj'  and  one  of  them  "  fol- 
diers,"  which  our  prefent  does  not ;  but  our  prefent  includes 
•*  timber  for  (hip-building,  tar  or  rofin,  copper  in  fheets,  fails, 
hemp,  and  cordage,  and  generally  whatever  may  ferve  directly 
to  the  equipment  of  veffels,  unwrought  iron  and  fir  planks 
only  excepted,"  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  our  former  treaties. 

It  is  alleged  that  the  including  of  thefe  articles  is  an  exten- 
tion  of  the  lilt  of  contraband  beyond  the  limit  of  the  modern 
law  of  nations  ;  in  fupport  of  which  allegation,  it  is  affirmed, 
that  they  have  been  excluded  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  trea- 
ties which  have  been  formed  for  more  than  a  century  paft. 

Though  this  pofition  will  not,  upon  careful  examination,  ap- 
pear correct ;  yet  it  is  fo  far  founded,  as  to  claim  an  acknow- 
ledgment, that  the  article  under  confideration  has,  in  this  in- 
ftance,  purfued  the  rigor  of  the  law  of  nations.  It  was  to  this, 
I.  alluded,  when  I  obferved  that  it  contained  one  unpleafant 
ingredient. 

It  is  a  fact,  that  far  the  greater  proportion  of  modern  trea- 
ties exclude  naval  ftores  or  articles  for  fhip-building;  yet  this 
is  not  univerfally  the  cafe. 

By  the  third  article  of  the  treaty  of  alliance  and  commerce 
between  Great  Britain  and  Denmark,  in  1670,  the  parties 
agree  "  not  to  fumifh  the  enemies  of  each  other  with  any 
provifions  of  war,  as  foldiers,  arms,  engines,  guns,  fhips  or 
other  neceffiries  for  the  ufc  of  war,  nor  to  fuffer  the  fame  to 
be  furniihed  by  their  fiibjects."  An  explanation  of  this  article 
was  made  by  a  convention,  dated  the  4th  of  July,  1780, 
which,  after  enumerating  as  contraband,  the  ufual  catalogue 
of  military  implements,  adds,  in  the  precife  terms  of  our  arti- 
cle, "  as  alfo  timber  for  fhip-building,  tar,  rofin,  copper  in 
fheets,  fails,  hemp,  and  cordage,  and  generally  whatever  may 
ferve  -directly  to  the  equipment  of  veffeis,  unwrought  iron,  and 
fir  planks  only  excepted." 

In  a  feries  of  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and  Portugal, 
down  to  the  year   1  703,  I  do  not  difcover  that  there  has  ever 


Camillus— No.  XXXIII.  213 

been  a  regulation   of  the   articles  which  arc  to  be  treated  as 
contraband,  between  thefe  powers. 

And  between  Sweden  and  Great  Britain,  the  1  ith  article  cf 
a  treaty,  entered  into  in  1661  (and  dill  in  force  unaltered, 
though  a  fubfeouent  commercial  treaty  was  made  between 
thofe  powers  as  late  as  1776)  fubjcclsto  confifcation  equally  all 
articles  called  contraband,  and  especially  money,  provifions,  &fc. 
The  fpeciMcation  not  being  complete,  naval  ftorea  are  left  upon 
the  open  ground  of  the  law  of  nations  -,  but  money  and  pro- 
vifions  are  fuperadded — This  latitude  would  bear  little  doubt 
as  to  the  intention  to  include  naval  ftoi 

It  appears  from  thefe  fpecimens,  that  there  is  not  a  perfect 
uniformity  in  the  conventions  between  nations;  and  that  no 
purely  pofitive  law  of  nations  can  be  deduced  from  that  fourcej 

If  we  call  to  our  aid  the  principles  of  reafon  and  natural 
juflice,  which  are  the  great  foundations  of  the  law  of  nations, 
we  fliall  not  difcover,  in  tins  inftance,  data  as  certain  as  could  be 
wifhed,  for  a  fatisfa£tory  conclufion;  and  the  founded  determi- 
nation,  which  we  can  adopt,  will  be,  that  beyond  a  certain  point, 
I  the  queftion  is  in  a  great  degree  arbitrary,  and  mult  depend 
materially   upon  conventional   regulation   between   nation  and 

Vol.  III.  G  g 


*  An  opinion  lias  been  propagated  that  Sweden  armed  in  concert  with  Den- 
mark, in  order  to  maintain  the  neutral  right  of  carrying  corn  and  flour  to 
France,  in  oppofition  to  the  convention  of  March,  1793,  between  Great  Bri- 
tain and  Riifiia ;  and  that,  in  confequence  of  this  procee 

of  thefe  powers  have  proved   more   fuccefsful   than    we   have  been  in  obtaining 
fatisfaction  from  Great  Britain. 

This  opinion  is,  throughout,  an  error,  made  ufe  of  by  thofe  whofe  perfevering 
aim  has  been,  by  GJencing  truth,  reafon,  and  moderation,  and  inflaming  the  angry 
paffions  of  the  community,  to  involve  the  country  in  anarchy  and  war — The 
authors  of  this  impofture,  as  well  as  the  exalt:,!  patriots  who  have  feen  in  the 
memorial  of  our  envoy,  the  humiliation  of  our  country,  are  .  n  :d  to  "  col- 
lection of  ftate  papers  relative  to  the  war  againft  France,"  pub!  (he  1  by  I 
in  1794.  The  perufal  of  the  Swedifh  flsre  papers,  as  well  as  the  memorials  of 
the  able  and  prudent  Bcrnftorff,  may  teach  thefe  gentlemen  a  little  of  what  is 
I  manners  on  tlnfe  occafions. 

So  far  from  even  rcmonftrating,  much  lefs  arming  on  account  of  the  Britifh 
inftruetion  of  June,  179.1,  when  that  order  was  notified  at  Stockholm,  by  the 
Britifh  refident  there,  the government-of  Sweden,  by  their  refident  at  London, 
acknowledged,  in  terms  too  refpcctful  to  be  repeated  in  the  hearing  of  our  ex- 
clufive  patriots,  that  Sweden  was  perfectly  fatisfied  with  the inftrucYion  ;  Di 

der  i'iiured,  ail  proviGons,  in  virtu-,  ol  an  ex- 
treaty  ,betwe<  11  the  two  nations,  were  liable  to  confifcation  when  feized,  on 
their  way  to  an  enemy. 

This  note  is  added  for  of  refuting  a  popular  error,  and  not  to 

vindicate  the  infiru&ion  allud<  1  to,  which  1  confid  r;  jury  to  the  righj 

neutral  nations,  that  has  not  been  juftified  by  the  infwers  thai  have  been  given 

ind  Danifh  n 


214  Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXXIII. 

nation. — Hence  it  is  there  is  fo  great  a  diverfity  in.  the  ftipula- 
tions  of  different  parties  on  this  point;  indicating  that  there  is 
no  abfolute  rule.  Hence  alio  it  is,  that  feveral  nations,  at  dif- 
ferent times,  being  at  war,  have  thought  themfelves  authorized 
to  regulate  and  announce,  by  public  declarations,  the  article 
which  they  would  confider  and  treat  as  contraband. 

The  opinion  of  writers  will  be  found  to  fupport  the  article. 
as  it  (lands,  in  the  particular,  which  is  now  the  fubjedf,  of  dif- 
cuffion. 

Vattely  we  have  before  feen,  (B.  B.C.  3.  6,  7.  f.  11 2)  exprefsly 
ranks  naval  /tores  and  timber  under  the  denomination  of  con- 
traband goods. 

Hienecius  ( de  navibus,  Sec,  Chap.  I.  S.  10,  11  and  14)  ac- 
cords in  the  fame  pofition  to  the  extent  of  whatfoever  apper- 
tains to  the  equipment  of  veffels.* 

Bynkerfhsok  is  lefs  explicit.  After  laying  it  down  as  the  gene- 
ral rule  that  naval  (lores  or  the  materials  of  (hips,  are  not  con- 

>and,  he  proceeds  thus — "Yet  it  fometimes  happens  that 
the  materials  of  (hips  may  be  prohibited,  if  an  enemy  is  in 
great  ivani  of  them,  and  without  them  cannot  conveniently  carry  on 
the  ibdi  ,-'f  and  he  afterwards  cites,  with  approbation,  feveral 
e  icls  or  proclamat  is,  which  the  dates  general,  in  different 
with  different  nations,  have  publifhed,  declaring  thofe 
id — thus  referring  it  to  the  belligerent  party 
to  judge  ot\  and  pronounce  the  cafes  when  they  may  right- 
full)  be  deemed  fo — And  the  fame  idea  feems  to  have  been 
adopted  by  Gi  otiusjj.  and  fome  other  writers  on  public  law — I 
not  met  with  one  whofe  opinion  excludes  naval  (lores  from 
the  lift  of  contraband. 

Grotius,  in  dHcufling  this  queftion,  divides  goods  into  three 
claffes,  I.  Thofe  which  are  of  ufe  only  in  war,  as  arms.  Sec. 
2.  Thofe  which  ferve  only  for  pleafure;  3.  Thofe  ufeful  for 
peaceable  as  well  as  for  warlike  purpofes,  "  as  money, provjfiomt 
ihips  and  naval  fores" — concerning  which  he  argues  in  fub- 
flance,  that  the  fir  ft  clafs  are  clearly  contraband  ;  that  the  fe- 
cond  clafs  are  clearly  not  contraband  ;  and  that  the  third  clafs 
may  or  may  not  be  fo,  according  to  the  (late  and  circumflances 
of  the  war;  alleging,  that  if  neceffary  to  our  defence •,  they, may  be 
intercepted,  but  upon   condition   of  reftitution,  unlefs  there  be 

*  Vela,  Reflet  et  ft  quae  alia  ad  apparatum  rrautieurn  pertinent. 

•{■  Quandoque  tanun  accidit  ut  et  navium  materia  prohibeatur,  fi  hoftis  ea 
quam  maxime  indigeat  at  abfque  ea  commode  bellum  Gt — Qua?fti. 

onum  juris  Publici  L.  1  chap,  X.  page  8c. 

J  B.  iii.  C.  I.  V. 


Cam  ill  us — No.  XXXIII.  21* 

juft  caefe  to  the  contrary  ;   which  juft  ca'i  )lained  by  the 

examples  of  fending  them  to  a  befieged,  01  ace. 

The  reafoning  about  the  third  ry  inconvenient 

latitude.  It  fubj.cis  the  trade  or  ively 

to  the  difcrerion  of  belligerent  powe;    •,  there  is  a  feri- 

OU6  embarraffment  about  drawing  the   •  .  hich  will 

duly  conciliate   the  fafety   of  the   be  .   the 

neutral,  party. 

What  definition  of  contraband,  confuting  reafon  alone, 
ihall  we  adopt?  Shall  we  lay,  that  none  but  artie  ar  to 

war  ought  to  receive  this  denomination?  Jjuc  is  even  pc-rder 
excluftvely  applicable  to  war  ?  Are  nitre  aiul  fulphur,  its  chief 
ingredients,  peculiar  to  war?  Ave  they  not  all  ufeful  for  other 
purpofes;  fome  of  them  in  medicine,  and  ether  important 
arts  ?  Shall  we  fay,  that  none  but  articles  prepared  and  organ- 
ized for  war,  as  their  primary  object,  ought  to  have  that  charac- 
ter? But  what  fubllanti.il  difference  can  reafon  know,  between 
the  fupply  to  our  enemy  of  powder,  and  that  of  fulphur  and 
falt-petre,  the  ealily  convertible  materials  of  this  mifchievous 
compound  ? 

How  would  either  of  thefc  definitions,  or  any  other,  comport 
with  what  thofe  of  our  treaties  which  are  thought  unexception- 
able, in  tliis  particular,  have  regulated,  or  with  what  is  com- 
mon in  the  treaties  between  other  nations?  Under  which  of 
them   fhall  we  bring  horfes  and  their  furniture  ? 

If  we  fay,  that  in  wars  by  land,  thefe  are  instruments  little 
lefs  important  than  men,  and,  for  that  reafon,  ought  to  be 
comprehended;  it  may  be  aiked  in  return,  what  can  be  more 
neceffary  in  wars  by  fea,  than  the  materials  of  hops,  and  why 
mould  they  not,  for  the  like  reafons,  I  .■  comprehended  ? 

In  wars  between  maritime  nations,  who  transfer  it.,  calami- 
ties from  the  land  to  the  ocean,  and  wage  their  moii:  furious 
conflicts  on  that  element,  whole  dominions  cannot  be  attacked 
or  defended  without  a  fuperiority  in  naval  ftrength,  who  more- 
over  poflefles  diftant  territories,  the  protection  and  commercial 
advantages  of  which,  depend  upon  the  exigence  and  fupport 
of  navies,  it  is  difficult  to  maintain,  that  it  is  aga-inlr.  reafoq,  or 
againft  thofe  principles  which  regulate  the  defcription  of  con- 
traband, to  confide r  as  fuch  tl:  materials  which  appertain  to 
the  eonllruclion  and  equipment  of  (hips. 

It  is  not   a  Sufficient  objection,  that   thefe  articles  are  1 
for  other  purpofes,  and  especially  for   thofe  ot  n 
merce — Horfes  are   of  primary  util  rricul  ure 

has  been  feen  that  there  are  other  articles  indifputab'y 


116  Ca  MILL  us— No.  XXXIII. 

lift  of  contraband,  which  are  entirely   within  the  principle  of 
that  objection. 

Rutherforth,  a  fer.uble  modern  writer,*  after  truly  obferv- 
ing,  "  that  the  notion  of  contraband  goods  is  of  fome  latitude, 
fo  that  it  is  not  eafy  precifely  to  determine  what  are  and  what 
are  not  of  this  fort — that  all  warlike fiorcs  are  certainly  contra- 
band, but  that  (till  the  queftion  returns,  what  arc  to  be  reckoned 
warlike  ftores  f" — after  noticing  the  divifion  of  articles  by  Gro- 
tius  and  the  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  third  clafs — draws 
this  conclufion,  that  "  where  a  war  is  carried  on  by  jea  as  well 
as  by  land,  not  only  fhips  of  war  which  are  already  built,  but 
the  materials  for  building  or  repairing  of  fhips,  will  come  un- 
der the  notion  of  ivarlihe  Jlores"  This  is  a  precife  idea,  and, 
it  mult  be  confefled,  on  principle,  not  an  irrational  one. 

If  we  refort  to  the  opinions  which  have  been  entertained  and 
evidenced  in  our  own  country,  they  will  be  found  to  have  given 
great  extent  to  the  idea  of  contraband — Congrefs,  by  an  act 
of  May  the  Sth,  1777,  cftabliflung  the  form  of  commiffions 
for  privateers,  authorize  them  "  to  attack,  fubdue,  and  take 
all  fhips  and  other  veffels  whatever,  carrying  foldiers,  arms,  gun- 
powder, ammunition,  provifions>  or  any  other  contraband  goods, 
to  any  of  the  Bntifh  armies  or  (hips  of  war,  employed  againft 
the  United  States.  And  in  their  acl  of  the  27th  of  November, 
1780,  acceding,  in  part,  to  the  rule  of  the  armed  neutrality, 
they  declare,  that  contraband  (hall  be  thereafter  confined  to  the 
articles  contained  under  this  character,  in  our  treaty  with 
France;  indicating,  by  this,  their  opinion  that  the  lift  of  thofe 
articles  is  abridged  by  that  treaty.  If  the  firft  mentioned  act 
was  well  founded  (and  there  are  ftrong  reafons  for  it)  it  efta- 
blifhes  that  even  provisions  may  be  contraband,  if  going  directly 
to  invading  fleets  and  armies;  which  affords  an  inftance  of  their 
being  fo  (analogous  to  the  cafe  heretofore  put  of  a  befieging 
army)  in  addition,  to  the  cafes  of  places  befiegeci,  blockaded, 
or  invefted.  And  as  to  naval  ftores,  I  aflert  a  belief,  that  the 
common  opinion  of  thofe  perfons  in  this  country,  whofe  con- 
templation had  embraced  the  fubjeel,  included  them  in  the  ca- 
talogue of  contraband. 

*  Infringes  of  Natural  Law,  book  II.  chap.  x.  xix. 


[TO    BE    CONTINUED.] 


t.No.  XII.] 
THE 


American  Remembrancer  5 


AN  IMPARTIAL  COLLECTION 


O   F 


ESSAYS,    RESOLVES, 

SPEECHES,    8fc 

I 

RELATIVE,    OR.    HAVING    AFFINITY,    TO    THE 

TREATY  with  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

— <  <<  ^«<-^^-»>-  >•— 

VOLUME     III. 

— < «€J^<€$<^^>0>>§*>  ► — 

PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED    BY     HENRY    TUCKNISS, 

frOR    MATHEW    CAREY,    NO.     lid*    MARKET-STREET. 

•"—JANUARY     20,    179^. 


CONTENTS. 

Page 
i.  CINNA,  No.  V,  -  -  -  219 

2. No.  VI.  226 


3.  Addrefs  to  the  Citizens  of  New  York  -           233 

4.  2\tew  jHw*£  Reprefentation  and  Petition  -           236 

5.  Camillas,  No.  XXXIII. — concluded  -         -       238 

6. TV*.  XXXIV.                 .  .         .       240 

7. iV*.  JLIXF.         -             -  -          245- 

8. No.  XXXVI.         -             -  -  a   253 

9. M  Zl'177/.         -  259 

10., , No.  XXXVIII.—and  laf  -         -     266 

1 1 .  Remarks  on  the  Treaty  of  Amity,  Navigation, 
and  Commerce,  &V.  By  a  Citizen  of  the  United 
Stales  -  276 

12.  Plymouth  Proiefl  -         -  -  -         310 

}  3.  Reflations  adopted  at  a  Meeting  of  the  Inhabi- 
tants of  Weftmoreland  County  (Virginia)  Septem- 
ber 25th,   1795  -  -  ..  31  r 

1 4.  Anfiucr  of  the  Prefdent  of  the  United  States       3 1 2 
-siiS.  jftrit  jiitfc  ;i«.  jijn.  jiufc.  Ji*t  j<i«.  jsiik  jbfl>_  AAlm  _«- 


American  Remembrancer,  (fcfc< 

C  I  N  N  A.— No.  V. 
[continued  from  PAGE  102.] 

CAMILLUS,  and  all  thofe  who  have  preceded  him,  in 
conudering  the  fccond  article  of  the  treaty,  aiTert  that 
it  accomplijbes  a  primary  objedt  of  the  envoy's  miflion,  and  one 
of  great  importance  to  the  United  States.  He  then  details, 
at  fome  length,  the  important  advantages  which  muft  refult 
from  an  acquiiiticn  of  the  weftern  pods.  Although  there  be 
nothing  new  in  thefe  details,  I  am  glad  he  has  gone  into  them, 
as  fuch  a  view  will  enable  us  properly  to  appreciate  the  article 
in  qucllion. 

Ca  mill  us  dates,  that  a  recovery  of  thefe  pods  will  extin- 
guish a  fource  of  controverfy  between  the  two  countries — will 
enable  us  to  controul  the  hodilitics  of  certain  Indian  tribes, 
which  have  already  cod  four  millions — will  extend  our  trade — 
will  prevent  Great  Britain  from  contracting  our  boundaries — 
and  will  promote  an  harmonious  and  permanent  connexion 
between  the  weftern  and  Atlantic  countries. 

That  all  thefe  benefits  would  have  accrued  to  the  United 
States  from  an  unconditional  furrender  of  thefe  pods,  cannot 
be  doubted.  I  fay,  unconditional,  becanfe  when  we  come  to 
the  third  article,  we  fiiall  find,  that  as  far  as  an  extenfion  of 
trade  is  concerned,  Great  Britain  has  taken  care  not  only  tu 
come  in  for  a  participation  of  the  fur  trade,  but  that  this 
claufe  is  fo  conftrucled,  as  to  feeure  to  her,  efpecially  when 
her  local  fituation  is  conGdered,  an  almod  exclufive  right  to 
this  lucrative  branch  of  it.  If  the  furrender  of  thefe  pofts  will 
be  of  fuch  immenfe  moment  to  the  United  States,  and  their 
detention  a  proportional  detriment,  how  happens  it  that  the 
acquifition  is  not  better  fecured  than  it  is  ?  You  fay,  it  is  true,- 
that  the  objecTt  is  "  accompliped  "  from  which  expreffion,  tak- 
en by  itfelf,  it  might  be  inferred,  that  a  redoration  had  aclu* 
oily  taken  place,  that  being  the  natural  and  obvious  meaning 
of  the  word  which  is  here  made  ufe  of.  It  is  not  intended  in 
this  place  to  charge  Camillas  with  an  intention  to  deceive,  be- 
caufe  from  other  parts  of  this  number,  the  period  limited  for 
this  purpofe  is  afcertained.  But  he  will  allow  me  to  afk,  as  has 
often  been  done  already,  why  the  differences  between  the  two 
countries  could  not  have  been  a  Ijuded  in  a  feparate  indiu- 


2  20  ClNNA —  No.     V". 

mtnt .'  and  why  i'u  remote  a  period  is  fixed  for  an  evacW* 
tion,  which  might  certainly  have  been  made  in  a  much  ihortef 
time  ? 

Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  mutually  complained 
of  infractions  of  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  former  charged  U3 
with  impeding  the  recovery  of  debts;  and  we,  on  the  other 
hand,  remonflrated,  among  other  things,  agaihft  her  detenti- 
on of  the  vveftern  polls.  Without  reviving  here  the  queftion 
of,  who  was  firft  in  fault  ?  which  would  only  lead  to  repetiti- 
on, and  does  not  admit  of  much  new  light,  it  may  be  demand- 
ed, as  tl  d  States  have,  by  the  6th  article,  not  only 
admitted  the  truth  of  the  allegation  againfl  them,  but  provid- 
ed for,  and  actually  afTumed,  and  pledged  their  faith  for  pay- 
ment of  the  principal  and  intereft  of  all  the  Brinlh  debts  of 
this  defcription  -,  why,  after  fo  folenin  and  entire  removal  or 
the  fole  ground  of  complaint,  did  not  our  envoy  infill  upon 
a  more  prompt  execution  of  thole  parts  of  the  treaty  which 
had  been  violated  by  Great  Britain  ?  It  is  evident  that  actual 
payment  was  not  made  by  her  a  Condition  precedent  ;  for  no 
lefs  than  eighteen  months  are  allowed  for  the  exhibition  of 
claims  after  the  commiffioners  meet.  She,  therefore,  confider- 
ed  the  promife  on  the  part  of  our  government  as  equivalent 
to  a  complete  performance  of  fuch  parts  of  the  treaty  as  fhe 
alleged  had  been  infringed  by  us.  It  became  her  duty,  then, 
the  moment  this  dbllacle  was  removed,  to  withdraw  her  gar- 
rifons,  in  the  words  of  that  treaty,  "  with  all  convenient  /peed." 
Tliefe  terms  have  been  called  ambiguous,  although  Great 
Britain  herfelf,  by  her  conduct  immediately  fubfequent  to  the 
treaty,  affigned  to  them  a  meaning  which  they  plainly  import, 
and  which  none  but  a  fceptic  would  ever  have  called  in 
queftion.  If  we  may  judge  by  the  time  employed  in  remov- 
ing from  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  and  particularly 
from  this  city  (New  York,  whofe  evacuation  was  completed 
in  the  fall  of  1783)  we  may  conclude,  that  the  garrifons  from 
thefe  pofts  might  have  all  been  withdrawn  in  fewer  weeks  than 
our  envoy  has  granted  months  for  the  purpofe. 

Taking  together  this  article,  io  far  as  it  refpects  the  contem- 
plated evacuation,  and  the  fixth  article,  abilracted  from  other 
parts  of  the  treaty,  perhaps  no  other  reafonabie  objection  can 
be  offered  againlt  chem,  except  the  unreafonable  time  allowed  to 
Great  Britain  to  perform  her  part  of  the  ftipulation.  But  when 
it  is  confidered,  that  this  article  makes  part  of  a  treaty  of  com- 
merce, replete  with  the  moft  injurious  concdlions  from  the 
United  States,  fome  of  which  have  undoubtedly  been  infilled 
upon  as  C^nfiJefJticns  For  it  j  who  will  b;  h:.rdy  en  :ugh  to  ex- 


ClNNA — No.    V.  221 

patiate  upon  advantages  which  bear  no  comparlfon  with  the 
Sacrifices  which  have  been  incurred  to  obtain  them  ?  It  will  rea- 
dily occur,  to  every  reader,  that  if  America  refufes  to  ratify  a 
Tingle  article,  this  one  which  has  been  excepted  as  the  chef 
d'eeuvre  of  our  negociator,  mud  alio  become  a  dead  letter. 
Every  friend  to  his  country  muft  fervently  willi  either  that  the 
prefident  will  have  virtue  and  firmnefs  enough  to  refufe  it  lu3 
fan£tion,  or  that  the  king,  in  a  fit  of  pride,  will  not  confent  to 
the  modification  propofed  by  the  fenate.  That  honorable  body 
may  yet,  without  intending  it,  have  promoted  the  falvation  o£ 
their  country. 

But  admitting  a  ratification  to  take  place,  is  not  every  page 
a  fruitful  fource  of  doubts  and  altercations  ?  If  about  fo  plain 
and  {hort  an  inltrument  as  that  which  gave  us  peace,  difputes 
immediately  arofe  between  the  two  countries,  and  continued 
without  adjuftment  for  more  than  ten  years — if  the  plained 
exprefiions,  and  one  of  the  moll  important  articles,  were  quib- 
bled into  unmeaning  and  nugatory  itipulations — if  the  con- 
ductions of  Great  Britain,  although  manifeftly  repugnant  to 
the  fenfe  of  the  contracting  parties — to  the  fubjecl  matter  of 
the  compact,  and  to  the  plain  import  of  the  terms,  has  been 
warmly  fupported  by  men  of  talents  and  character  among  our- 
felves,  who  can  fay  that  fimilar  difcuflions  and  difficulties  will 
not  very  foon  take  place  refpecling  an  agreement,  containing 
as  many  pages  as  the  other  does  fentences,  and  embracing  a 
much  greater  variety  of  matter?  In  fuch  an  event,  the  charge 
that  we  have  Jirfl  broken  the  treaty  will  be  renewed  ;  we  may 
retort  it  if  we  plcafe  ;  but  the  polls  will  be  detained  until  the 
differences  are  fettled,  for  which  purpofe  another  embafiy 
extraordinary  muft  be  recurred  to  j  and  who  can  infure  that  we 
(hall  then  be  able  to  command  the  diplomatic  fkill  and  talents  o£ 
Governor  Jay  ?  Notwithftanding,  therefore*  Camillus  confiders 
this  object  as  accomplished,  it  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  diftant 
as  ever,  or  at  leall  depending  on  fuch  a  variety  of  intervening 
incidents,  as  may  probably  defeat  it  altogether.  It  has  frequently 
been  urged,  that  nothing  but  a  defire  to  procra(tin:ite,  and 
finally  to  break  her  engagements,  if  circumffaiKC?  render  it 
prudent,  could  have  induced  Great  Britain  to  infill  upon  {o 
up  -.^afonable  a  time  to  perform  what  good  faith  demanded  o£ 
her,  the  moment  we  fatisfied  the  breach,  alleged  to  have  been 
made  by  us,  and  which  (he  could  have  no  interelt  in  deferring 
to  a  remote  day,  if  fhe  ultimately  intended  to  comply  with  her 
promife.  To  garrifon  fo  many  forts  mud  be  a  great  expenfe, 
to  fay  nothing  of  the  troops  who  might  be  much  more  profita- 
bly employed  elfewhere.    The  views,  therefore    of  the  Britifh 

Vol.  Ill,  I  i 


222  ClNNA — No.  V. 

cabinet  in  retaining  them  fo  long,  can  neither  be  honorable, 
nor  of  the  molt  pacific  nature.  They  forelee,  that  if  any  con- 
troverfy  arifes  between  the  two  governments,  which  is  almoft 
unavoidable,  Great  Britain  will  have  a  pretext  for  not  carrying 
into  effect  this  ftipulation.  They  alfo  forefee,  or  hope,  that 
peace  will,  in  the  mean  time,  be  reftored  to  Europe,  and  that 
the  king  will  have  it  in  his  power  to  make  fuch  ufe  of  interven- 
ing occurrences  as  circurnftances  may  render  prudent.  On  the 
part  of  America,  no  propitious  event  can  reafonably  be  ex- 
pected. Determined  as  fhe  is  to  abide  by  all  her  engagements, 
which  fhe  has  evinced  in  every  trying  fituation,  hers  was  the 
preient  moment  !  It  is  almoft  paft  ;  if  fhe  neglects,  as  an  in- 
confiderate  individual,  to  improve  it,  which  has  too  long  been 
the  cafe,  years  of  remorfe  and  regret  muft  follow. 

If  America  could  have  commanded  events,  a  more  fortunate 
coincidence  could  not  have  occurred  than  thofe  which  fucceeded 
each  other,  in  rapid  and  aftonifhing  progrefs,  during  the  whole 
of  her  negociation  ;  a  more  brilliant  campaign,  than  the  one 
on  the  part  of  our  ally,  is  not  furnifhed  in  the  annals  of  hiftory. 
Succefs  every  where  crowned  her  arms — although  fingly  op- 
pofed  to  the  coalefced  powers  of  Europe,  fhe  not  only  expelled 
the  enemy  from  her  own  territory,  but  made  foreign  conquefts 
which  furpafs  belief.  Great  Britain,  wich  an  obftinacy  bordering 
on  defpair,  expected  her  fate,  which  all  Europe  confidered 
inevitable.  Could  a  more  aufpicious  feafon  for  negociation  have 
been  defired  ?  Our  information  from  Great  Britain  correfponded 
with  the  languine  expectations  which  the  reiterated  defeats  of 
the  combined  armies,  compoied  in  part  of  Britifh  regiments, 
could  not  fail  to  excite.  Every  letter  from  London  was  replete 
with  the  fuccefsful  career  of  our  envoy.  He  was  reprefented  as 
obtaining  every  thing  he  afked;  the  mercantile  intereft  of  that 
country  had  arranged  itfelf  on  his  fide.  Difgufted  with  the  con- 
duct of  their  own  court,  and  alarmed  at  the  probable  confe- 
quence,  the  merchants,  in  a  body,  or  by  deputation,  even 
before  Mr.  Jay's  arrival,  waited  on  Mr.  Pitt,  and  extorted,  from 
his  fears,  or  a  fenfe  of  jullice,  a  relaxation  in  the  predatory 
fyftem,  which  was  purfuing  towards  the  United  States.  Nothing 
was  talked  of  on  either  fide  of  the  Atlantic,  but  the  gracious 
reception  of  the  American  minifter,  and  the  diftinguifhed  at- 
tentions which  he  received.  Even  the  royal  family  vied  with  the 
minifters  in  their  efforts  to  render  his  vifit  as  pleafing  as  poffi- 
ble  ;  and  when  intelligence  arrived,  that  a  treaty  was  figned,  not 
a  man  doubted  but  the  terms  of  it  correfponded  with  this  fortu- 
nate concurrence  of  circurnftances.  The  effect  of  thefe  exag- 
gerated accounts   upon  a  late  election  is  well  known.  Who, 


ClNNA — No.  V.  223 

after  all  this,  can  believe  that  this  golden  opportunity  has  been 
permitted  to  efcape,  and  that  the  fears  of  Great  Britain  have 
been  allowed  to  fubfide  without  our  compelling  her  to  do  us 
juftice?  Who  can  believe  that  (he  has  had  addrefs  enough  to 
ifend  our  envoy  home  with  a  treaty  which  has  kindled  through- 
out the  continent  a  flame  greater  than  any  excited  by  her  former 
indignities  or  vexations?  Camillus  will  fmile,  as  he  always  does, 
at  the  idea  of  addreiTing  the  apprehenfionsof  Great  Britain,  or 
laying  hold  of  her  fears  to  extort  from  her  that  redrels  which  a 
fenfe  of  juftice  fhould  long  fmce  have  induced  her  to  grant. 
Philo-Camillus  has  refented,  in  very  intemperate  language, 
my  calling  Camillus  an  apologitt  of  Great  Britain.  I  mult  be 
excufed  for  not  retracting  an  appellation,  which  is  not  lefs 
courted  by  Camillus,  than  deprecated  by  his  friend. 

Does  not  the  7th  number  of  the  Defence  furnifh  new  proofs 
of  the  epithet  which  has  been  applied  to  Camillus  ?  Every 
picture  which  reprefents  the  fituation  of  Great  Britain  as  criti- 
cal, is  termed  by  him  "  exaggerated  or  falfe."  If  her  armies 
and  thofe  of  her  allies  have  been  defeated  by  land,  the  is,  not- 
withstanding, **  triumphant  on  the  ocean."  If  (lie  owes  an  im- 
menfe  debt,  "  her  credit  is  unimpaired"  and  "  her  refources  are 
prodigious"  If  fome  difcontents  prevail,  "  her  government  is 
vigorous^  and  was  never  better  fupported."  If  her  manufactures 
are  injured,  "  they  are  Jlill  in  a  jlourifljing  fituation."  If  her 
commerce  is  annoyed,  "  it  »/,  notivithjlanding,  extenftve,  and 
profperous."  If  {he  is  in  difficulties  or  diftrefs,  "  fie  is  jlill 
haughty  and  overbearing."  Truly,  fir!  while  you  thus  ring 
changes  on  the  ftrength  and  refources  of  Great  Britain,  who 
can  be  blamed  for  fufpecting  your  motives?  Injured  as  we  are, 
would  it  not  have  been  a  better  proof  of  your  amor  patria?,  if 
you  now  and  then  brought  into  view,  and  no  one  can  do  it 
better,  fome  of  the  refources  of  your  own  country?  Your  lan- 
guage conftantly  reminds  us  of  the  conduct  of  the  royalills  at 
the  commencement  of  the  late  war.  They  expatiated,  in  very 
fimilar  terms,  on  the  folly,  and  even  madnefs,  of  oppofmg 
by  force,  acts  of  the  Britiih  parliament.  They  aflerted,  and 
with  too  much  truth,  that  we  were  without  men,  without 
arms,  without  military  knowledge,  without  money,  without 
fhips,  without  forts,  without  credit,  and  without  any  of  the 
common  means  of  defence  •,  that  our  commerce  would  be  ru- 
ined, our  towns  reduced  to  allies ;  and  our  country  laid  wade. 
America,  although  the  evils  which  (lie  then  complained  of 
were  inconfiderable,  when  compared  with  the  aggravated  in- 
fults  and  wrongs  (he  is  now  fubmitting  to,  fpurned  at  the  thou- 
fand  dangers  which  awaited   her.    Difdaining  to   fubmit,  Ihe 


224  ClNNA — No.  V. 

rifked  all  to  obtain  redrefs.  Heaven  fmiled  on  her  god-\ike 
efforts,  and  the  bloody  and  unequal  corned  terminated  in  free- 
dom and  independence. 

It  will  not  be  without  ufe  to  take  a  curfory  view,  in  thi» 
place,  of  fome  of  our  refources,  in  cafe  we  are  forced  into 
war  with  a  nation  whofe  vexations,  want  of  faith  and  juftice, 
will  fcavcely  leave  us  any  other  alternative.  War,  at  any  time, 
and  under  any  circumflances,  is  an  evil  to  be  ierioufly  depre- 
cated ;  but  it  is  a  calamity,  againft  which  no  human  prudence 
or  forefight,  can,  at  all  times,  guard  us.  It  is  profitable,  there- 
fore, to  know  our  own  ftrength  and  importance,  not  that  we 
may  become  infolent,  and  provoke  aggreffions,  but  that  we  may 
refent,  in  a  dignified  manner,  thofe  to  which  we  may  be  expofed 
from  the  injustice  or  pride  of  other  nations.  It  is  not  by  tamely 
crouching  to  infults  and  indignities  that  we  can  long  hope  for 
the  invaluable  bleffings  of  peace;  it  is  by  being  juft  to  others, 
and  compelling  others  to  be  juft  to  us.  We  may  fufFer  in  the 
conflict;  but  while  our  condudt  is  remembered,  our  public  char 
rafter  will  command  refpect,  and  no  nation  will  gladly  feek 
occafions  to  quarrel  with  us.  The  conceffions  we  have  been  in 
a  habit  of  making  to  Great  Britain,  and  the  returns  wc  have 
received,  have  not  only  debafed  us  abroad,  but  have  damped 
the  ardour  of  our  youth,  who  cannot  too  early  be  taught  to 
refpedl  their  country,  and  to  refent  the  injuries  fhe  may  receive. 
The  pufillanimcus  language  with  which  our  public  prints 
abound,  would  better  fuit  the  minions  of  an  arbitrary  defpot, 
t:  i:i  me  cit;z  .  pi  a  free  and  enlightened  nation.  Patriotifm 
&nd  the  love  liberty  are  almoft  extinft,  and  we  muft  not  be 
furprized,  if  ine  virtuous  and  heroic  deeds  of  our  countrymen 
who  conduced  us  to  the  temple  of  freedom,  and  gave  us  a 
feat  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  are  foon  ftigmatized  as  the 
Jacobinical  efforts  of  difcontented  Democrats  and  Anarchifts. 
Thefe  are  the  mild  epithets  which  are  conftantly  applied  by  a 
certain  party,  to  the  beft  patriots  among  us,  for  no  other  reafon, 
than  becaufe,  feeling  for  the  proftrated  honor  and  violated  rights 
of  their  country,  they  urge  the  government  to  a  more  manly 
expreflion  of  their  fentiments,  and  a  more  fpirited  vindication 
of  their  wrongs. 

In  cafe  of  war  with  Great  Britain  (which  is  by  no  means 
probable,  if  we  a£l  with  becoming  fpirit)  what  are  the  evils  to 
be  apprehended  ? — Her  moft  zealous  partizans  ridicule  the  idea 
of  her  ever  obtaining  a  footing  in  this  country.  At  the  diftance 
of  a  thoufand  leagues,  reduced  as  her  army  already  is,  and  at 
war  with  a  great  maritime  power,  it  cannot  be  dreaded  that  fhe 
will  be  able  to  tranfport  to  this  country,  troops  adequate  to  fuch 


ClNNA — No.  V.  225 

an  attempt.  If  (he  had  the  means,  her  experience  in  thr  laft 
war  mull  fatisfy  her,  that  no  conqueft  (he  can  attempt  will  be 
an  equivalent  for  the  enormous  expenfe  of  making  and  holding 
it.  During  the  laft  war,  although  (lie  recruited  her  armies  in 
this  country,  although  (he  fubfidized  feveral  German  princes, 
yet,  with  all  this  ftrength,  added  to  her  own,  the  only  perma- 
nent acquifitions  (he  made  were  a  few  acres  on  our  fea  coafts. 
Many  of  the  difadvantages  with  whirh  America  then  ha  o 
contend  exift  no  longer.  Among  thefe  may  be  reckoned,  a  cruel 
internal  foe,  whom,  for  a  long  time,  we  did  not  dart-  to  punifh 
•as  traitors.  Yet  many  well-intentioned,  weak-minded  Jf 

whofe  opinions  and  wiflies  were  on  the  fide  of  their  <  y, 

but   dreaded   too  much  the  power  of  Great  Britain,  a         ne 
punifhment  which  invariably  follows  an  unfuccefsful  rel       oil, 
openly   to  efpoufe  her  caufe,  total  want  of  military  fki       no 
regular  government  or  conflituted  authorities,  for  committees 
pnd  conventions  could  hardly  be  deemed  fuch,  no  arms,  a  weak 
and  undifciplined  militia,  no  credit,  nor  any  other  means  of 
reprefenting   money  but  by  the  pernicious  circulation  of  a  pa- 
per currency.  Great  Britain,  it  will  alfo  be  remembered,  was 
then  in  the  zenith  of  her  power,  and   at  peace   with   all  the 
world,  which   {he  had  enjoyed   without  interruption  fince   the 
treaty  of  Paris,  in  1763,  a  period  of  more  than  twelve  years. 
Under  all  thefe  difcouraging  circumttances,  America  unfheath- 
ed   the  fword.  She  fuffered,  it  is  true  j  but  in   the  midft   of 
calamities,  which  (he  can  never  experience  again,  Ihe  achieved 
prodigies  of  valour  ;  and  a  fuccefs  exceeding  her  molt  fanguine 
hopes,  finally  crowned  her  arms.  What  is  our  fituation  at  pre- 
fent  ?    We  have  conltitutions  and  governments  of   our  own 
choice — Our  general  government  is  as  well  obeyed,  notwith- 
standing daily  allegations   to  the  contrary,  as  any  in  the  world 
— We  Ihall  no  longer  fight  with  halters  about  our  necks,  or 
with  a  gibbet  in  view — We  have  men,  whofe  military  fkill  and 
experience,  acquired  in  the  late  war,  will  be  ineftimable — We 
have  not  only  credit,  but  other  means  of  railing  a  revenue, 
without  again  recurring  to  the  depreciating  and  fluctuating  me- 
dium of  paper-r-We  have  a   militia   exceeding  half  a  million 
of  men,  well  disciplined  and  accoutred,    and  officered,  in  ma- 
ny inltances,  by  perfons  who  have  received   military  leflbns  in 
the   field  of  danger  and  of  death — -Great  Britain   has  added 
millions  to  her  debt ;  her  commerce,  if  not  ruined,  has  greatly 
fuffered  by  the  French  privateers;  her  manufacturers  are  out  of 
employ,  and  clamorous,  and,  what   is  no  unimportant  confi- 
deration,  we  (hall  have  a  powerful  ally   in  France,  who  has 
ftemmed  the  united  force  of  Europe,  has  conquered  fome  of 


226  ClNNA— No.  VI. 

her  enemies,  and  compelled  others  to  fue  for  peace.  This  fub- 
ject  will  be  refumed  in  my  next  number,  and  further  notice 
taken  of  the  feventh  eflay  of  Camillus. 

C  I  N  N  A. 
New  York,  Auguft  15,   1795. 

P.  S.  I  am  abufed  for  my  intemperate  expreffions  with  re- 
fpect  to  Camillus.  I  neither  know  him,  nor  does  he  know  me. 
My  conclufions  are  drawn  from  his  writings.  If  he  be  a  patriot, 
he  takes  uncommon  pains  to  make  the  world  think  otherwife. 
He  calls  me  a  Jacobin  for  defending  my  country  ;  and  he  and 
his  friends  are  angry  with  me  when  I  fufpect  his  patriotifm 
for  making  fuch  defence  neceflary.  No  good  will  refult  from 
being  perfonal.  Let  principles,  and  not  men,  be  our  objects. 
Againft  arguments,  and  not  motives  (except  when  they  may 
be  fairly  inferred  from  our  public  conduct  or  writings)  be  our 
attack.  By  his  defence  (for  I  know  nothing  more  of  him)  fhall 
my  judgment  be  formed  of  Camillus.  By  my  reply  (which  is 
all  he  will  probably  ever  know  of  me)  he  is  at  liberty  to  make  up 
his  opinion  of  me.  Ridicule  and  abufe  are  no  more  tefts  of 
truth,  than  flowing  numbers  or  fine-turned  periods.  A  queftion 
more  momentous,  than  the  one  in  which  we  are  engaged,  has 
not  been  agitated  fince  our  exiftence  as  a  nation  !  Let  us  be 
warm,  but  not  rude.  With  the  talents  of  Camillus,  the  talk 
would  be  eafy  to  convince  any  unprejudiced  perfon,  that  our 
very  independence  hangs  on  a  rejection  of  the  treaty.  But  na- 
ture is  feldom  as  lavifh  of  her  gifts  as  fhe  has  been  to  Camillus ; 
I  muft  be  content,  therefore,  to  purfue,  in  plain  and  unadorned 
language,  a  duty  which  birth  and  citizenfhip  impofe  upon  me, 
and  in  which  I  have  no  object  unconnected  with  the  welfare 
and  happinefs  of  my  country. 


No.  VI. 

IT  is  objected  by  fome,  who  are  for  enduring  every  extre- 
mity, rather  than  incur  the  hazards  of  war,  that  our  trade 
will  be  ruined  by  Britifh  cruifers,  and  that  the  revenue  arifing 
from  it  will  fail.  That  our  intercourfe  with  foreign  nations 
will  undergo  fome  interruption,  and  our  commerce  be  expofed 
to  confiderable  rifle  and  injury,  cannot  be  denied ;  but  let  us 
not  look  only  at  the  dark  fide  of  the  picture;  if  our  trade  to 
other  nations  is  impeded,  their  fnips  will  find  no  difficulty  in 
obtaining  accefs  to  us  ;  they  will  aflert  their  neutral  rights  ;  and, 
being  no  longer  colonies,  Great  Britain   will  have  no  preten- 


ClNNA— No.  VI.  227 

tions    to    interdict  this   communication,    unlefs,    indeed,    (he 
fhould  attempt  to  ftarve  the  United  States,  and  by  proclamation 
blockade  every  port  in  the  union.  Such  of  thefe  nations,  as  have 
not  had  the  weaknefs  or  complaifance  of  America,  to  facrifice 
to  Great  Britain,  the  protection  which  neutral  bottoms  mould 
over  afford,  even  to  enemies'  goods,  may  tranfport  our  property 
in  fafety  to  any  part  of  the  globe.  It  may  well  be  doubted,  then, 
whether  our  imports  will  be  much  lefs  in  times  of  war  than  at 
prefent,  and  even  our  exports  in  neutral  veffels,  and  our  own, 
will  be  confiderable.  Our  merchants  often  mention,  with  afto- 
nifbment,  the  number  of  veffels,  which  arrived  fate  during  our 
revolutionary  contelt-,  when  even   neutral  bottoms   could  not 
reach  us  without  the  fame  hazard  of  being  captured  and  con- 
demned as  our  own.  But  the  commerce  we  fhould  carry   on, 
and  that  of  neutral  countries,  would  not  be  the  only  fources  of 
revenue  •,  our  privateers  would  cover  the  ocean.  Does  not  the 
commerce  of  Britain  hold  out  allurements,  and  afford  an  exten- 
five  fource  of  wealth  to  our  enterprizing  merchants  and  mari- 
ners ?  The  duty  on  prize  goods,  added  to  that  on  the  impor- 
tation of  goods  in  the  ordinary  way,  would  not  only  prevent  a 
diminution  of  the  revenue,  but  carry  it  beyond  its  prefent  point. 
"Who  would  believe,  that  in  the  maritime  courts  of  only  three 
of  the   counties   of  Maffachufetts,   namely,  of  Suffolk,  Effex, 
and  Middlefex,  there   were  libelled,   during  the  laft  war,  no 
lefs  than  one  thoufand  and  ninety-live  veffels,  with  their  car- 
goes, and  thirteen  cargoes  which  had   been  taken  from  veffels 
abandoned  after  their  capture,  making  in  the  whole  eleven  hun- 
dred and  eight!  Mr.  Coxe,  in  his  View  of  the  United  States, 
affures  us,  that  the  records  of  thofe  counties  authenticate  the 
fact.    He  alfo  adds,  that  the   number  of  veffels  belonging  to 
Great  Britain,  in  1774,  as  ftated  by  a   Britilh  premier,  in  his 
place   in  parliament,  was,  6219,  whereof  3908   were  Britiih 
built,  and  2311    were   American   built.   "  What  havoc  then," 
exclaims  Mr.  Coxe,  "  did  thefe  fifhermen  make  among  the  Bri- 
tifh  merchantmen  ?  above  a  fixthof  all  their  vfffels,  were  brought 
by  thefe  people  as  prizes  into  the  markets  of  the  United  States, 
with  cargoes  to  an  immenfc  amount,  compofed  of  every  fpecies 
of  military   and  domeltic   fupply,    in  a   feafon  of  the   utmoft 
emergency  :  it  appears  too,  that  thefe  prizes  were  no  lefs  than 
a  fourth  part  of  all  the  Britifh  built  (hips  of  that  nation.  The 
opinion   of    the    molt    candid    and    beft-informed     cftimaters, 
founded  on  careful  enquiry,  countenance  the  prelum pt ion,  that 
fifty  five  per  cent,  of  all  the  veffels,  captured  by  the  people  of 
Maffachufetts  during  the  war,  were  taken  before  their  arrival ; 
fo  that  there  is  the  utmofi;  probability,  that  the  whole  number 


2  28  ClNNA—  No.   VI. 

of  veflelsj  which  were  captured  by  the  {hipping  rf  thefe  three 
counties,  was  2450  fail.  How  great  a  derangement  was  this  to 
the  Britifh  commerce  ;  and  how  heavy  muft  have  been-  the  ex- 
penfe  of  falvage  paid  to  the  re-captors;  how  ,  a:  the  number 
of  marine  piiloneif,  how  ferious  the  interruption  to  the  man- 
ning of  the  navy  ?  "  It  would  appear,"  fays  Mr.  Coxe,  «  that 
the  armed  veffels  of  our  principal  fiihing  ftate,  captured,  in 
thecourfe  of  the  late  war,  near  one  half  of  the  merchant  (hips, 
ordinarily  belonging  to  Great  Britain,  and  above  three-fourths 
of  the  number  of  her  native  built  (hips." 

A  ftriking  proof  is  exhibited,  in  what  precedes,  of  the  feri- 
ous  impreflion  made  by  our  veffels  on  the  navigation  of  Great 
Britain,  at  a  time  too,  when  it  might  reafonably  be  thought 
{he  had  nothing  to  fear  from  us.  The  fource  from  which  this 
information  is  drawn,  precludes  the  poflibility  of  error.  It 
may  be  added,  that  fuch  were  the  apprehenfions  then  enter- 
tained of  American  privateers,  that  infurance  of  Britifh  mer- 
chantmen was  more  exorbitant  than  in  any  war,  in  which  that 
kingdom  had  been  engaged  for  fifty  years  part,  although  no  ma- 
ritime nation,  with  whom  (he  had  contended  during  that  period* 
had  been  fo  deficient  in  {hips  of  war,  as  the  United  States.  If 
America,  then,  in  her  very  infancy,  when  (he  had  to  contend 
with  a  thoufand  difficulties*  which  are  now  furmounted,  and 
can  never  occur  again,  was  able  thus  to  annoy  the  greatefl  na- 
val power  in  Europe— who  can  eftimate  the  wounds  which  (he 
may  now  inflict  on  her  commerce,  in  the  prefent  advanced  ftate 
of  her  population  and  (hipping  ?  She  would  indeed  find  us  an 
unprofitable  and  troublefome  enemy ,  without  the  means  of 
retaliation,  fhe  would  have  every  thing  to  apprehend  from 
America.  Her  trade,  as  well  as  that  of  Spain,  Holland,  and 
Portugal,  pallcs  by  our  coafts;  and  the  injury  and  lofTes  tv 
which  it  would  be  expofed,  are  incalculable. 

But  not  in  her  trade  alone,  would  Great  Britain  be  vulnera- 
ble ,  her  colonial  pofleffions  on  the  continent,  muft  fall  into 
Our  hands.  If  the  gallant  Montgomery,  at  the  head  of  a  few 
hundred  men,  railed  in  hafte,  badly  armed,  and  although  brave, 
mere  novices  in  difcipline,  reduced,  in  an  inclement  feafon,  the 
whole  province  of  Canada,  except  its  capital,  which,  but  for 
his  unfortunate  and  much-lamented  death,  would  alfo  have 
opened  its  gates  to  the  American  arms ,  what  may  we  not  ex- 
pect from  the  formidable  force  we  fhould  now  be  able  to  fend 
againfl  it  ?  The  inhabitants  of  Vermont  alone,  which  was 
then  but  beginning  its  fettlement,  would  more  than  fufEce  for 
its  conqueft.  I  make  no  account  of  the  difpofition  of  the  inha- 
bitants, who  are  repreiented  as  highly  incenfed  againfl  the  Bri- 


ClNNA—  No.   VI.  229 

tifn,  and  anxioufly  waiting  a  favorable  ocoafion  to  (liake  off 
their  yoke,  and  become  part  of  the  United  States.  Nova  Scotia 
too,  and  the  adjoining  fettlements,  would  be  an  eafy  prey  to 
the  militia  of  Maflachufetts  and  the  Province  of  Maine.  Thefe 
important  acquifitions  to  the  United  States  would  more  than 
countervail  any  lofs  they  could  poflibly  fuftain.  Nor  would  any 
part  of  the  Weft  Indies,  in  cafe  of  an  American  war,  long 
continue  colonies  of  Great  Britain.  France,  with  the  aid  fhe 
might  derive  from  this  country,  could  not  fail  to  reduce  them. 
Her  fleets  and  armies,  deftined  for  fuch  an  expedition,  after  re- 
cruiting in  the  United  States,  might  proceed,  full  of  health  and 
well-provifioned  for  the  iflands. 

The  evils  to  Gteat  Britain  would  not  flop  here.  Her  Subjects 
hold  great  part  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,  and 
our  citizens  are  indebted  to  them,  to  the  amount  of  many 
millions  fterling.  Britain  being  the  aggreffing  nation,  and  the 
war^not  only  of  her  feeking,  but  manifestly  unjuit  on  her  part, 
the  principles  of  felf-prefervation  would  dictate,  and  her  own 
conduct,  and  the  laws  of  war  juftify,  the  fequeftration  of  this 
property.  Mr.  Jay,  it  is  true,  with  more  complaifance  to  Lord 
Grenville,  than  delicacy  to  his  own  government,  has  declared 
fuch  conduct  impolitic  and  unjuft.  Congrefs,  and  in  particular 
Mr.  Dayton>  who  moved  the  meafure,  will  not  foon  forget  fo 
handfome  a  compliment  from  a  minifter,  whofe  refpect  for  the 
legiflature  of  his  own  country,  whatever  his  private  fentiments 
might  be,  ought  to  have  checked  this  intemperate  efFufion,  Mr. 
Jay  appears  to  have  thought  an  excufe  neceflary  for  an  article, 
by  which  we  yield  much,  without  gaining  any  thing ;  and  was, 
therefore,  determined  to  infert  one  even  at  the  expeufe  of  con- 
grefs and  the  honour  of  his  own  country. 

The  tenth  article  will  probably  undergo  an  inveftigation  here- 
after ;  we  proceed,  therefore,  to  enumerate  fome  other  dif- 
t refit: s  to  which  an  American  war  might  expofe  Great  Britain. 
The  injury  to  her  trade,  from  our  privateers,  has  already  been 
Stated;  but  if  not  a  Tingle  veffel  of  this  description  was  fitted 
out,  ftill  her  commerce  would  Suffer  beyond  estimation.  The 
interruption  of  her  trade  to  this  country,  would  be  an  evil 
which  admits  of  no  alleviation.  In  the  year  one  thoufand  {e\en 
hundred  and  ninety  one,  we  took  from  Great  Britain,  exclud- 
ing Ireland  and  the  BritiSh  Ealt  Indies,  in  Britifh  manufactures, 
to  the  immenfe  value  of  very  near  four  millions  of  pounds  fter- 
ling. It  alfo  appears,  from  authentic  public  documents,  that 
the  vefTels  of  Great  Britain,  loaded  in  the  United  States,  in 
1 79 1  and  92,  were  about  equal  in  tonnage  to  all  the  Britifh 
veflels,  cleared  out  of  that  kingdom  for  Ruflia,  Denmark,  Nor-' 

Vol.  III.  Kk 


230  ClNNA— No.    VI. 

way,  Sweden,  Pruffia,  Poland,  Hamburgh,  Bremen,  and 
Germany  in  general.  Will  a  nation,  not  infatuated,  readily 
plunge  into  war  with  America,  nr.d  encounter  fo  great  a  lots 
as  mult  inevitably  enfue  from  a  ftagnation  of  trade  ;  foT  the 
uncertain  and  precarious  advantages  to  be  reaped  from  fuch  a 
ftate  of  things  ?  If  we  have  no  fecurity  in  her  wifdom  or  juf- 
tice,  may  we  not  place  fome  reliance  on  her  intereft,  which 
will  be  fo  fenfibly  and  directly  affected  by  a  ceflation  of  all  in- 
tercourfe  between  her  and  the  United  Stares  ?  what  will  be 
the  clamours  of  her  manufacturers,  many  ot  whom  are  already 
idle  and  ftnrving,  when  fuch  valuable  confuniers,  as  the  Ame- 
ricans, are  compelled,  by  the  injufhee  of  their  own  govern- 
ment, to  withdraw  their  cuftom  ?  What  muft  be  the  difficulties 
and  difcontents  of  the  merchants,  when  ali  remittances  from 
this  country  not  enly  ceafe,  but  when  their  debtors  here  may 
be  rendered  unable,  in  the  courfe  of  the  war,  to  pay  any 
part  of  their  dues,  even  on  the  return  of  peace  ?  What,  but 
an  universal  fpirit  of  diftrult  and  diffatisfaction  muft  pervade 
the  whole  kingdom,  which  is  now  panting  for  peace,  when  it 
is  difcovered,  that  the  minilter,  by  his  violence  and  rafhnefs> 
inftead  of  restoring  to  it  lo  great  a  boon,  has  precipitated  it 
into  a  new  war,  which  cannot  fail  to  be  unpopular,  and  as 
long  as  fuch  extenfive  commercial  connexions  fubfift  between 
the  two  countries,  muft  be  execrated  in  proportion  to  the  ruin 
and  diftrefs  which  will  ever  accompany  it?  Thofe  who  affect  to 
«riefpife  the  public  opinion  of  Great  Britain,  betray  an  ignorance 
of  the  hiitory  of  that  kingdom.  However  (trong  the  prefent 
attachment  to  their  conltitution — however  well  fupported  the 
crown  may  be — whatever  backwardness  or  apprehenfion  may  be 
difcovered  at  the  mention  of  a  revolution,  after  fome  of  the 
unfortunate  excefles  which  have  been  perpetrated  in  France,  the 
voice  of  the  people,  in  much  more  arbitrary  reigns,  has  made 
itfelf  heard,  and  minilters,  who  have  been  favorites  of  the  crown, 
and  fupported  with  all  the  patronage  and  weight  of  royalty,  have 
been  compelled  to  yield  to  the  imperious  torrent,  or  have  been 
brought  to  the  block  in  their  attempt  to  withltand  it. 

To  conclude,  from  what  happened  in  England  in  the  laft 
war,  that  one  with  America  at  prefent  will  be  popular,  would 
be  to  reafon  from  miltaken  premifes.  At  that  time  an  act  of 
parliament  had  declared  us  in  rebellion,  and  the  general  accep- 
tation and  belief  correfponded  with  the  declaration.  The  very 
term  carried  with  it  fomcthing  that  enlifts  the  feelings  of  man*- 
kind  againlt  thofe,  who  are  branded  with  the  odious  epithet. 
Manvwife  men  in  England,  were  in  fentiment  with  this  coun- 
ty, while  fhe  confined  her  object  to  redrefs  of  grievance,  and 


ClNNA — No.  VI.  23X 

fought  it  by  petitions  and  addrefTes  ;  but  when  fhe  took  up 
arms,  and  more  cfpecially  when  (he  declared  herfelf  independ- 
ent, views,  hoftile  to  the  mother  country,  were  imputed  to 
her  from  the  beginning,  and  a  meafure,  extorted  by  dire  ne- 
cefhty,  and  a  (en(e  of  felf-prefervation,  was  confidcred,  as 
full  evidence  of  an  original  and  early  defign  to  feparate  the 
colonies  from  the  mother  country.  Although  nothing  could  be 
more  fallacious,  and,  in  point  of  fact,  more  erroneous  than 
fuch  an  inference,  it  had  its  eSc£k  \  and  either  from  real  abhor- 
rence of  its  attempt,  or  from  a  fear  to  avow  their  real  fuuiments, 
the  American  caufe,  for  fome  time,  loft  ground  in  England. 

At  prtient,  we  arc  not  only  an  independent  people,  but  have 
been  formally  recognized  in  that  character  by  the  king  and 
parliament  of  Great  Britain.  The  juftice  or  injuftice,  a-s  well 
as  the  advantages  and  injuries  of  the  war,  would,  therefore, 
become  objects  of  enquiry  in  England,  the  refult  of  which 
could  not  fail  to  be  favorable  to  the  American  government  and 
character.  It  could  not  efcape  the  molt  curfory  obferver,  that 
with  a  fincere  difpofition  to  cultivate  peace,  juftice,  and  good 
underftanding  with  all  mankind,  we  had  been  moft  cruelly  in- 
fulted  and  outraged  by  the  Britifh  cabinet.  Corresponding  fen- 
timents  would  take  place,  and  the  throne  and  parliament  would 
be  environed  with  petitions  for  peace ;  for,  even  in  that  coun- 
try, it  is  yet  lawful  for  the  fubject  to  convey,  in  refpectful 
language,  his  complaints  to  the  fupreme  authority  of  the  na- 
tion, without  incurring  the  appellation  of  Jacobin  or  Anar- 
chift.  What  would  be  the  effect  of  a  war  on  the  public  debt 
of  Great  Britain,  befides  a  prodigious  accumulation,  cannot 
be  afcertained.  Its  prefent  enormous  bulk  muft  fill  thinking 
men  with  ferious  apprehenfions  for  the  confequences  of  a  fur- 
ther increafe.  It  already  exceeds  what  the  moft  intrepid 
financier  would  dare  to  call  a  public  blefiing.  When  we  confi- 
der  what  an  enormous  fum  was  added  to  it  by  her  attempt  to 
reduce  this  country  to  unconditional  fubmiffion,  arid  the  im- 
rnenfe  expenfe  attending  the  operations  of  war,  whole  feenc  is 
fo  diftant  as  America,  it  would  excite  no  furpvize,  fhould  a 
national  bankruptcy  be  the  confequence  of  another  fimilar  ex- 
ertion. Private  bankruptcy  muft  follow,  and  public,  as  well  as 
individual  ruin  muft  enfuc.  No  man  yet  has  forgotten  tlv; 
numerous  failures  and  private  diXtrefs  which  UnjoodiateJy  iuc- 
cecded  the  late  rupture  with  Fiance,  the  (hock  of  which  mult 
have  been  inconfuierahle,  compared  with  what  would  happe.i 
on  a  breach  with  this  country. 

But,  fay  thofe,  who  are,  at  all  events,  for  peace! ul  meafurej., 
your  fea  ports  arc  defencelefs,  and  will  be   laid  ip  allies.  l>c- 


232  ClNNA — No.  VI. 

grading  as  my  opinion  is  of  the  public  conduct  of  Great  Britain, 
I   cannot  bring  myfelf  to  believe,  that   fhe   will   pay  fo  little 
regard  to  the  laws  of  war  and  humanity,  as  to  conduct  it  in  a 
■way   fo  totally  repugnant  to  both.  The  burning  of  defencelefs 
towns,  or  even   thofe   which  are   fortified,  unlefs  in  attempts 
to  reduce  them,  is  an  imputation  fo  horrid,  that  it  can  only  be 
made  to  excite  our  alarms.  It  is  an  evil  not  to  be  ferioufly  appre- 
hended. It  is  a  poffibie,  but  not  a  probable  danger.  Defolating 
as  the  laft  war  was,  which  raged  with  all  the  bitternefs  of  civil 
fury,  when  neither  principles,  character,  nor  humanity   were 
refpecled,  how  few  of  our  towns  were  confumed  :  If  then  this 
calamity  was  but  partially  experienced  during  a  controverfy,  in 
which  a   breach  of  faith  and  humanity  towards  rebels,  was 
deemed    no  (tain   on   the  national  character  of  Great  Britain, 
why  are  we  to  apprehend  this  mercilefs  warfare  at  prefent  ?  It 
will  neither  be  the  policy  nor  intereft  of  our  enemy  to  conduct 
it  in  this  way.  The  fea  ports  are  emphatically  the  refidence  of 
their  beft  friends.  Deftroy  them,  and  by  whom  will  the  injury 
be  felt  ?  Principally  by  the  advocates,  not  the  enemies  of  Great 
Britain  ;  by  her  apologifts,  not  by  our  friends.  Burn  the  fea 
ports,  and   what  becomes  of  the  Britifh  debtors?  Set  fire   to 
our  cities,  and  America,  having  loft  all,  fhe  will  become  a  def- 
perate  and  implacable  foe.    But  has  Great  Britain  no  defence- 
lefs towns?  If  jufticeand  humanity  have  loft  their  influence  on 
her  councils,  ftill  motives  of  intereft  will  not  be  wanting  to  re- 
ftrain  her  from  fuch  barbarous  difplays  of  her  fuperiority.  Will 
fhe  not  dread  retaliation  ?  If  America  cannot,  will  not  France 
be  able  to  return  the  infamous  warfare  in  kind  ?  Will  not  all 
Europe  applaud  a  deed  provoked  by  her  own  cruelties  and  wan- 
tonnefs  ?  Let  us   turn  then  from  the  difgufting  apprehenfion, 
chimerical   in  the   extreme.    While  France   is  at  war,  fhe  can 
always,  and  it  will  be   her  intereft  to,  furnifh   a  fleet  fuffici- 
ent  for  the   protection  of  thofe  of  our  towns  which  are  mod 
expofed.  Twelve  fhips  of  the  line  and  as  many  frigates,  which 
we  ought  to  have  of  our  own,  will  more  than  fuffice  for  the 
purpofe.    Many  of  them   are   capable  of  fortification,    and  it 
would  be  nodifcredit  to  the  government  to  employ  more  activity 
in  putting  them  in  a  better  ftate  of  defence.  It  is  become  fo  com- 
mon, to  attribute  every  effufion   of  patriotifm  to  the  word  of 
motives ;  that  it  is  with  fome   reluctance  I  dare  to  remind  my 
fellow  citizens,  of  the  united  voice  of  America,  when  fimilar 
apprehenfions  were  excited  to  deter  her  from  any  oppofition  to 
the  claims  of  the  Britifh  parliament.  I   mull,  however,  be  fo 
confonarit  to  the  feelings   of  many  of  the  patriots  of  that  day 
xvho  yet  furvive,  and  whofe  principles  are  not  adulterated  by 


New  York  Address.  233 

penfions  and  offices,  that  I  cannot  withhold  the  pleafure  it  mud 
afford  them.  "  No,  firs,"  fays  congrefs,  with  one  voice,  ad- 
dreffmg  themfelves  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  "  we  never 
will,  while  we  revere  the  memory  of  our  gallant  and  virtuous 
anceftors,  we  never  can  furrender  thefe  glorious  privileges  for 
which  they  fought,  bled,  and  conquered ;  admit,  that  your 
fleets  could  deitroy  our  towns,  and  ravage  our  fea  coaftsj  thefe 
are  inconfiderable  objects  ;  things  of  no  moment  to  men,  whofe 
bofoms  glow  with  the  ardour  of  liberty.  We  can  retire  beyond 
the  reach  of  your  navy,  and,  without  any  fenfible  diminution  of 
the  neceffaries  of  life,  enjoy  a  luxury,  winch,  from  that 
period,  you  will  want;  the  luxury  of  being  free  !n  This  was  the 
language  of  America,  when  (lie  had  infinitely  more  to  appre- 
hend than  at  prefent.  Whither  has  the  fpirit,  that  dictated  it, 
taken  its  flight  ?  Where  is  now  that  public  virtue,  which  not 
only  manifelted  itfelf  by  thole  folemn  cxprelfion  ,  which  are 
now  ridiculed  as  the  frantic  ravings  of  a  diftempered  imagina- 
tion, but  carried  into  exercife,  refolutions  which  aftoniihed 
thofe  to  whom  they  were  addreffed,  and  which,  any  but  men 
flruggling  to  be  free,  would  have  fhuddered  to  adopt?  What, 
I  repeat,  is  become  of  this  fpirit  and  patriotifm  ?  Are  they 
laughed  to  fcorn  ?  Or  do  they  ceafe  to  warm  and  animate  the 
fons  of  Columbia  ?  Heaven  forbid  !  A  few  years  of  peace  and 
luxury  cannot  have  enervated  their  limbs,  extinguilhed  their 
martial  fire,  or  itifled,  in  their  generous  brealts,  fentiments 
which  were  once  efteemed  their  ornament  and  pride.  They 
want  but  to  be  rouzed  into  action.  Should  a  neceflity  euft, 
and  the  gallant  youth  of  America  be  fummoned  to  their  coun- 
try's ftandard,  may  we  not  indulge  the  fond  hope,  that  they 
will  pant  to  entwine  their  brows  with  laurels,  garhered  in  the 
walks  of  glory  and  honor,  and  burn  to  emulate,  if  not  fur- 
pafs,  their  illuftrious  fathers  in  heroic  efforts,  to  avenge  the 
public  caufe  ? 

C  I  N  N  A. 
New  York,  Auguft  18,   1795. 

ADDRESS 

To  the  Citizens  of  New  York. 

IF  ever  a  period  exifted   in   the  hiftory  of  any  people,  in 
which  great  prudence  and   circurhfpe£tib'ri   were     (Tenttal 
to  the  prefervation  of  public  liberty,  that  period  is  now  corn- 


234  New  York  Address. 

pletely  realized  in  the  affairs  of  this  country.  To  preferve  our 
conftitution  of  government  in  its  prefent  limited,  and  happy 
form  ;  to  guard  againft  the  encroachments,  and  the  ambitious 
views  of  men,  with  whom  the  arm  of  power  is  entrufled ;  to 
prevent  the  executive  magiftrate  from  interfering  with  and 
exercifmg  legiflative  authorities;  to  maintain  inviolate  our  na- 
tional independence,  and  to  give  (lability  and  energy  to  thofe 
political  rights  and  liberties  which  are  guaranteed  by  the  firft 
terms  of  the  fociai  compact  ;  is  indeed  an  arduous,  but  it  is  a 
neceflary  duty ;  a  taflc  which  requires  the  moll  intimate  union 
of  patriotifm  and  talents,  of  deliberation  and  caution,  with 
fortitude  and  firmnefs. 

Shall  we  ever  remain  embarraffed,  as  we  hitherto  have  been, 
by  the  unhappy  diffentions  which  fo  long  have  enlifled  us  under 
the  dangerous  banners  of  party?  Subdued  by  prejudices,  and 
governed  by  delufion,  fhall  we  ever  continue  unmindful  of  the 
dictates  of  truth  and  realon  ?  Shall  refentment  and  paffion  be 
always  fubftituted  ior  folid  argument,  and  the  invidious  tongue 
of  calumny  be  permitted  to  ftifle  enquiry?  If  we  really,  with 
fmcerity,  regard  our  own  rights  and  liberties,  if  we  are,  in 
truth,  attached  to  the  conftitution  of  our  country,  the  refolu- 
tion  mud  be  formed  to  defend  them  from  all  invafion,  from 
whatever  quarter  the  attack  may  originate. 

The  late  treaty  with  Great  Britain  has  long  been  tranfmitted 
to  public  difcuilion  ;  already  we  perceive  the  undifguifed  aver- 
fion  of  our  countrymen  to  that  molt  odious  of  inftruments  :  In 
vain  do  we  fearch  for  its  admirers  among  the  fteady  patriots  of 
our  country.  They  are  only  to  be  found  among  the  miflionaries 
of  Britain,  and  among  the  advocates  of  unlimited  authority. 
Thefe,  indeed,  have  attempted  to  influence  your  prejudices,  in 
favor  of  particular  men,  to  excite  your  apprehenfions,  to  feduce 
your  umierftandings,  and  betray  your  judgments,  into  a  com- 
pliance with  the  unnatural  compact;  but  all  in  vain.  Truth  is 
omnipotent,  and  will,  eventually,  difcomfit  their  infidious  at- 
tempts. 

Were  we  not  told,  and  did  we  not  believe,  that  the  fole  ob- 
ject of  negociation  was  "  a  friendly  adj  uftmcnt  of  our  complaints  ?" 
wa?  it  not  officially  intimated,  that  our  envoy  would  «  carry 
with  him  a  full  knowledge  of  the  exijling  temper  and  fenfibility  of 
our  country,  and  thus  be  taught  to  vindicate  our  rights  with  fir  m- 
tiefs  ?"  Were  we  apprized,  or  who  of  us  had  reafon  to  imagine, 
that  the  fecret  views  and  real  intentions  of  our  cabinet,  was  to 
ftrengthen  the  bands  of  political  connexion,  between  this  coun- 
try and  the  monarchy  of  Great  Britain  ?  At  the  moment  the 
property   of  our  induftrious  merchant  was   wrelted   from  his 


New  York  Address. 


235 


pofTeffion  by  the  rapacious  hand  of  violence;  when  our  rights, 
as  a  neutral  nation,  were  invaded,  and  the  honor  of  our  iiag 
nioft  bafely  injured  and  infulted  ,  in  fhort,  when  all  the  finer 
feelings  of  the  American  people  were  kindled  into  indignation 
at  the  perfidious  combination  againll  the  common  rights  and 
liberties  of  mankind  ;  the  executive  part  of  our  government, 
regardlefs  of  the  dignity  of  their  country,  and  unmindful  of 
the  fentiments  of  the  people,  have  concluded  a  treaty  of  amity 
and  commerce  with  the  molt  unprincipled  of  nations — Yet  1  ,s 
is  not  all.  We  fee  in  that  baneful  inltrument,  our  commercial 
interefts  abandoned  to  Britifh  rapacity.,"  our  conftitution  vio- 
lated, and  its  fecurity  fubmitted  to  the  mercy  of  future  admi- 
niftrations  ;  we  perceive  a  branch  of  the  government  attempt- 
ing to  bind  us  in  particulars  to  which  we  had  never,  either 
exprefsly,  or  virtually,  given  our  aflenr,  and  endeavouring  to 
ettablilh,  as  a  confti:utional  principle,  its  unlimited  right  to 
bind  us  in  all  cafes  whatfoever.— -With  pain  we  view  that  branch 
attempting  to  draw  the  peculiar  powers  of  the  legiflature  within 
the  vortex  of  its  own  authority  ,  to  invade  the  fovereignty  of 
the  conftituent  members  of  our  union  ;  to  difpenfe  with  the 
exifting  laws  and  itatutcs  of  our  country;  to  deftroy  the  per- 
fonal  fecurity  and  liberties  of  our  fellow  citizens,  and,  in  time, 
to  diftort  every  feature  that  has  either  proportion,  fymmetry, 
or  beauty,  in  our  federal  conjlitution.  Such  is  the  operation  and 
nature  of  the  prefent  treaty.  Such  the  injuries  for  which  the 
American  people  unite  to  obtain  redrefs. 

To  the  Houie  of  Reprefcntatives  of  the  United  States — to 
the  conftitutional  organs  of  the  people,  aiTembled  in  their  legif- 
Jative  capacity,  competed  of  men  freely  chofen  from  the  body 
of  the  people  by  the  voice  of  their  country — actuated  by  their 
commcii  fentiments,  impelled  by  their  general  feniibilities,  and 
authorized  to  declare  the  public  will,  we  muft  fubmit  our  re- 
prefentations,  in  them  repofe  our  hopes  of  redrefs ;  in  thas 
high  deliberative  affembly  we  muft  place  our  truft,/<?r  the  prefer va- 
tion  of  public  liberty,  and  the  fafety  of  the  conflttution. 

Citizens  cf  New  Tori!  your  countrymen  throughout  the 
United  States  have  adopted  a  memorial  to  be  transmitted  to 
their  public  reprefentaiives.  To  that  memorial  they  have  affixed 
their  fignatures. — Their  attention  is  placed  upon  you  with  ail 
anxious  folicitudc  that  plainly  befpeaks  the  importance  of  the 
occafion.  Remember,  that  the  prefervarion  of  public  liberty  i* 
one  of  the  molt  eflential  duties  of  focial  life.  It  remains  then  for 
you  to  evince  to  the  world,  that  while  you  arc  zealoully  anxi- 
ous to  preferve  the  bieflings  of  peace  and  order,  and  civil  go- 


236  New  York  Representation,  &c. 

vernment,  you  are  equally  determined  to  preferve  the  liberties 
and  conflitution  of  your  country. 


Form  of  the  petition,  to  be  tranfmitted  to  Congrefs. 

?To  the   Speaker  and  Members  of  the  Houfe  of  Reprefentatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  in  Congrefs  affembled: 

The  Reprefentation  and  Petition  of  the  Subfcribers,  Inhabi- 
tants of  the  State  of ,  and  Citizens  of  the  United 

States, 

Refpeclfully  Shewed, 

THAT,  viewing,  with  deep  and  anxious  concern,  the 
prefent  awful  crifis  in  the  affairs  of  our  common  coun- 
try, and  influenced  by  an  equal  folicitude  for  the  fecurity  of 
our  rights  and  liberties,  and  the  prefervation  of  peace  with  all 
the  world,  we  hereby  exercife  our  conftitutional  right  of  peti- 
tion, on  a  fubjeci:  as  momentous  as  any  that  has  ever  agitated 
the  feelings,  or  affected  the  interefts,  of  a  free  people. 

The  treaty  of  amity,  commerce,  and  navigation  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  lately  negociated  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  prefident  of  the  United  States,  and  conditi- 
onally ratified  by  the  fenate,  has  been  fubmitted  to,  and  un- 
dergone a  full  and  public  difcuflion :  And  your  petitioners, 
having  given  to  it  an  impartial  and  deliberate  consideration, 
feel  it  a  folemn  and  paramount  duty,  which  we  owe  to  our- 
felves  and  our  posterity,  to  convey  to  you  our  free  and  unbi- 
afled  opinion  thereon;  in  doing  which,  with  due  deference  to  the 
constituted  authorities  of  our  country,  whofe  fan£tion  to  the 
instrument  in  queftion,  has  been,  in  any  manner,  expreffed, 
we  declare,  that  to  your  refpeclable  body  alone  we  now  look 
up,  as  that  great  and  dernier  conftituted  authority,  which, 
having  a  more  general  and  equal  participation  than  any  other 
department  of  the  government,  in  the  common  interefts  and 
feelings  of  the  people,  and,  moreover,  poffefling  a  conftituti- 
onal controul  and  decision  on  all  questions  of  peace  and  war, 
are  peculiarly  the  guardians  of  the  public  peace,  liberty,  and 
welfare. 

"We  regard,  with  the  mod  lively  apprehension,  all  rhofe  fti- 
pulations  in  the  faid  treaty,  winch,  being  of  a  political  nature, 
have  a   tendency,  directly  or  iuJirectly,  to  involve  us  in  the 


New  York  Representation,  &c,  237 

political  intrigues  of  European  nations,  to  infract  the  treaty  of 
alliance  with  France,  and  to  give  occafion  for,  and  produce  the 
fad  fpeiftacie  of  war,  between  that  magnanimous  republic,  and 
the  republic  of  the  United  States;  flipulations  with  which,  in 
our  judgment,  the  faid  treaty  unhappily  too  much  abounds — 
And  we  cannot  be  lefs  apprehenfive,  under  thofe  direct  and 
manifeft  encroachments  on  the  conltitutional  powers  of  con- 
grefs and  the  rights  of  the  people,  which,  in  the  exercife  of  an 
aflumed  power  on  the  part  of  the  prefulent  and  fenatc,  have 
been  made  by  the  faid  treaty,  in  the  following  instances: 

1.  In  the  regulation  of  commerce  with  a  foreign  nation  : 

2.  In  the  regulation  of  trade  and  intereourie  with  the  In* 
dian  tribes  ; 

3.  In  regulating  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  of 
individual  lhites  ; 

4.  In  eitablifhing  duties  and  imports; 

5.  In  eitablifhing  a  rule  of  naturalization; 

6.  In  conflituting  a  tribunal  of  appeal,  paramount  to  thfi 
fupreme  judicial  court  of  the  United  States  ; 

7.  In  changing  the  tenure  of,  and  eftabHlhing  a  rule  to  hold, 
real  eflates; 

8.  In  defining  piracies,  committed  upon  the  high  feas,  and 
declaring  the  punilhment  thereof; 

9.  In  depriving  free  citizens  of  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  in  the  cafe  of  piracy,  as  defined  ana  punifhed 
by  the  faid  treaty;  and, 

La/Hy,  in  attempting,  in  various  other  inftances,  to  reftrairt 
and  limit  the  legislative  authority  of  congrefs. 

Wherefore,  folemnly  protefting  againit  the  exercife  of  power 
by  the  prelident  and  fenare,  in  any  of  the  foregoing  cafes, 
without  the  concurrence  of  congrefs,  as  manifestly  tending  to 
abforb  ail  the  powers  of  government  in  that  department  alone; 
to  ettablifh,  as  the  fole  rule  of  legifiation  over  all  the  great 
foreign  and  domeitic  concerns  of  the  United  States,  the  mere 
will  anil  abfolute  discretion  of  the  prefulent  and  fenate,  in  con* 
junction  with  a  foreign  power ;  and  finally  to  overturn  and 
effect  a  total  change  in  the  prefent  happy  conftitution  of  the 
United  States.  VVe,  your  petitioners,  molt  earneftly  pray, 
that  the  reprcfentatives  of  the  people,  in  congrefs  affembled, 
will,  in  their  wifdom,  adopt  fuch  melfures,  touching  the  faid 
treaty,  as  (hall  molt  effectually  fecure,  free  from  encroachment, 
the  conltitutional  delegated  powers  of  congrefs,  anil  the  rights 
of  the  people,  and  preferve  to  our  Country  an  uninterrupted 
jionti nuance  of  the  blellings  of  peace. 

Vol.  HI.  L  1 


[      23S      ] 

Defence  of  Mr.  Jay's  Treaty. 

[continued  from  page  216.] 
No.  XXXIII.— Concluded. 

NEVERTHELESS,  from  the  number  of  modern  treaties, 
which  exclude  from  that  lift  naval  flor  ■ ..,  and  moreover 
from  the  manifell  intereft  of  nations,  truly  coniidcred,  to  nar- 
row the  rights  of  war  in  favor  of  thofe  of  peace;  this  claufe  of 
the  treaty,  which  takes  a  different  route,  is  to  be  regretted  as 
purfuing  the  rigour  of  the  law  of  nations — Still,  however,  it 
cannot  be  objected  to,  as  a  departure  from  the  law;  and  agreeing 
with  the  courfe  obferved  by  Great  Britain  antecedent  to  the 
treaty,  it  does  not  place  our  trade  in  thefe  articles  upon  a 
worfe  footing  than  it  was,  independent  of  the  treaty. 

The  period  of  the  negociation  was  molt  unpropitious  to  a 
change  fqr  the  better — in  the  midft  of  any  maritime  war,  a 
belligerent  nation,  enjoying  a  naval  fuperiority,  was  like  to  have 
been  tenacious  of  a  right  which  fhe  fuppofed  herfelf  to  pofTefs  to 
intercept  naval  fupplies  to  her  enemy — But  in  a  war,  in  which 
it  was  more  than  ordinarily  pofhble  that  the  independent  exig- 
ence of  a  nation  might  depend  on  the  retaining  a  naval  fuperi- 
ority, it  was  to  have  been  forefeen  that  fhe  would  not  confent 
to  relinquish  fuch  a  right.  The  alternative  was,  to  infert  the  ar- 
ticle as  it  ftands,  or  to  omit  it  wholly. 

Had  it  been  omitted,  the  condition  of  naval  (tores  would 
have  been  the  fame  as  with  it.  But  our  merchants  would  then 
have  continued  to  be  expofed  to  uncertain  riiks,  which  is  always 
a  great  inconvenience,  ft  is  defirable,  in  fimilar  cafes,  to  have 
a  fixed  rule.  Merchants  can  then  accommodate  their  fpeculations 
to  the  rule  ;  and  caufes  of  national  contention  are  avoided. 

It  is  in  this  view  to  be  regretted,  that  the  cafes  when  provi- 
fions  may  be  treated  as  contraband,  could  not  have  been  agreed 
upon  ;  but  ;'S  this  was  impracticable,  the  next  belt  thing  has  been 
dene,  bv  eftahlifhing  the'  certainty  of  compenfation  in  all  fuch 
cafes.  This  gives  one  important  fpecies  of  fecurity,  obviates 
one  fource  of  contention.  And  if  really  there  may  be  other 
cafes  than  the  univerfally  admitted  ones,  in  which  provihons 
can  fairly  be  deemed  contraband  (as  that  defignated  by  the  acT 
of  congrefs  of  May  '"777;  the  fecuring  of  compenfation  was 
truly  a  point  gained  by  the  article. 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXIII.  239 

But  while  I  confefs,  that  the  including  of  naval  (tores,  among 
contraband  articles,  is  an  ineligible  feature  of  the  treaty,  I 
ought  to  declare,  that  its  confequcnccs  co  the  interefts  of  the 
United  States,  as  it  regards  the  trade  in  thofe  articles  in  time 
of  war,  do  not  appear  to  me  important — War  between  other 
nations,  when  we  are  at  peace,  will  always  increafe  the  demand 
for  our  bottoms,  Co  as  to  require  much  additional  building  of 
veffels,  and  probably  in  that  way  to  produce  a  move  beneficial 
fpecies  of  employment  of  the  naval  itores  our  country  affords, 
than  that  of  their  exportation  for  fale. 

The  adverfaries  of  the  treaty  are  eagle-eyed  to  fpy  out  in- 
fiances  in  which  it  omits  any  favourable  minutes  which  are 
found  in  our  other  treaties  ;  but  they  forget  to  balance  the  ac- 
count by  particulars  which  diftinguiih  it  favorably  from  thofe 
treaties.  Of  this  nature  is  the  omifhon  of  horfes  from  the  lift 
of  contraband,  and  flill  more  the  falutary  regulations  with  re- 
gard to  veffels  and  their  cargoes  going  to  places  befieged,  block- 
aded, or  inverted.  I  do  not  difcover  that  I  ,ul  provilions 
or  their  equivalents,  are  in  either  of  our  treaties  with  France, 
Holland,  or  Sweden. 

It  has  been  faid,  in  reference  to  this  article,  "  whenever  the 
law  of  nations  has  been  atopic  for  confederation,  the  refult  of 
the  treaty  accommodates  Great  Britain,  in  relation  to  one  or  both 
of  the  republics  at  war  with  her,  as  wed  as  in  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  rights  and  interefts  of  the  United  States," — And 
the  following  examples  are  given,  to  each  of  which  wdl  be  an- 
nexed a  reply. 

I.  "  American  veffels,  bound  to  Great  Britain,  are  protect- 
ed, by  fea-papers,  againlt.  French  and  Dutch  fearehes  :  but 
when  bound  to  France  or  Holland,  are  left  expofed  to  Britifh 
fearehes,  without  regard  to  (hips'  papers."  The  truth  of  this 
proportion  depends  on  another,  which  is,  that  the  fea-papers 
are  to  be  abfolutely  conclufive  ;  but  reafons  have  been  given  for 
doubting  this  conlLruclion,  which,  it  has  been  remarked,  does 
not  obtain  in  practice.  And  it  is  certainly  a  violent  one,  inaf- 
much  as  it  puts  it  in  the  power  of  the  neutral,  to  defeat  the 
rights  of  the  belligerent  party,  in  points  of  great  cor.fcquence 
to  its  fafety. 

II.  "  American  provilions,  in  American  veffels,  bound  to 
the  enemies  of  Great  Britain,  are  left  by  the  treaty  to  the  feiz- 
ure  and  ufe  of  Great  Britain  ;  but  provilions,  whether  Ameri- 
can or  not,  in  American  veffels,  cannot  be  touched  by  the  e- 
nemies  of  Great  Britain."  The  conftruction  of  the  treaty,  up- 
on which  this  difference  is  fuppofed,  has  been  demonft  rated  to 
be  erroneous. — The  difference,  therefore,  does  not  cxift. 


24©  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXXIV. 

III.  "  Britifli  property,  in  American  veflcls,  is  not  fubject 
to  French  or  Dutch  confiscation. — French  or  Dutch  property 
in  American  veflcls,  is  fubject  to  Britifli  confifcauon."  This 
was  the  cafe  before  the  treaty,  which  makes  no  alteration  in 
the  matter. — Moreover,  it  is  counterbalanced  by  this  circum- 
flance  ; — That  American  property,  in  Britiih  veffels,  is  fubject 
ta  confiscation  by  France  or  Holland;  but  American  property, 
in  French  or  Dutch  veffels,  is  not  fubject  to  confiscation  by 
Great  Britain. 

IV.  "  Articles  of  fhip-building,  bound  to  the  enemies  of 
Great  Britain  for  the  equipment  of  veffels  of  trade  only,  are 
contraband. — Bound  to  Great  Britain,  for  the  equipment  of  vef- 
fels of  war,  are  not  contraband."  This,  alio,  was  the  cafe  before 
the  treaty,  which,  confequently,  has  not  in  this  particular  more 
than  the  former,  produced  any  benefit  to  one  party,  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  other.  I  forbear  to  dwell  upon  the  article  of 
horfes,  as  falling  under  a  contrary  difcrimination  ; — nor  fhall  I 
infift  on  the  additional  circumftance,  that  all  American  goods 
not  generally  contraband,  if  going  to  a  place  befieged,  blocka- 
ded, or  inverted  by  French  or  Dutch  forces,  arc  liable  to  coniif- 
cation by  France  or  Holland  ;  if  going  to  a  place  befieged, 
blockaded,  or  invefted  by  Britifli  forces,  are  not  liable  to  con» 
iifcation  by  Great  Britain. 

Differences  of  thefe  feveral  kinds  are  the  accidental  refults 
of  the  varying  views  of  different  contracting  powers,  and  form 
flender  grounds  of  hlame  or  praife  of  the  refpective  contracts 
made  with  them. 

The  form  of  the  criticifms  laft  dated,  leaves  little  doubt  that 
it  was  defigned  to  infinuate  an  intention  in  this  article  to  favor 
the  Monarchs  of  Great  Britain,  at  the  expenfe  of  the  Re- 
publics of  France  and  Holland.  The  candor  of  it  may  be  judg- 
ed of  by  the  two  facts,  firit,  that  it  makes  no  alteration,  in 
this  view,  in  the  antecedent  ftate  of  things ;  and  fecondly,  that 
the  relative  fituation  of  Holland,  as  the  enemy  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, is  fubfequent  to  the  adjuftment  of  the  article. 

C  A  M  I  L  L  U  S. 


No.  XXXIV. 


TH  E  remaining  articles  of  the  treaty  principally  relate  t( 
thofe  maritime  regulations,  that  are  ufuaily  iuferted  ir 
modern  treaties  between  commercial  nations — and  on  that  con- 
sideration, as  well  as  from  their  evident  utility  in  enabling  us  tc 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXIV.  241 

diftinguifh  with  precifion  between  what  is,  and  what  is  not 
lawful,  in  relation  to  thole  points — they  are  entitled  to  our  ap- 
probation ;  ftill  however  even  fome  of  thefe  cuftomary  articles, 
whofe  object  and  meaning  are  fo  well  understood,  have  been 
deemed  exceptionable. 

The  fir  ft  paragraph  of  the  nineteenth  article,  in  order  to 
prevent  injuries  by  men  of  war,  or  privateers,  enjoins  (as  be- 
fore noticed)  all  commanders  of  fhips  of  war  and  privateers, 
and  all  other  citizens  or  fubjects,  of  cither  party,  to  forbear 
doing  any  damage  to  thofe  of  the  other,  or  from  committing 
any  outrage  againtl  them  :  and  decleres,  that  il  they  art  to  the 
contrary,  they  (hall  be  punifhable,  and  moreover  bound  in  their 
pcrfons  and  eftate6  to  make  full  fatii, faction  and  reparation  for 
all  damages,   of  whatsoever  nature  the  fame  may  be. 

Thefe  prohibitions  are  conformable  with  the  laws  of  the  U- 
nited  States:  If  under  colour  of  authority,  thofe  to  whom  the 
fame  does  not  relate,  fhali  receive  injury,  the  att,  according  to 
its  circumfb.nces,  is  an  offence,  for  which  the  offender  ;s  not 
only  anfwerabie  to  his  own  country,  but  moreover  to  the  injur- 
ed party,  to  whom  he  is  bound  to  make  full  and  complete  re- 
paration. 

The  open  and  explicit  views  of  the  parties,  and  their  mu- 
tual engagement  to  put  this  law  in  execution  againft  all  offend- 
ers, will  be  a  falutary  check  upon  the  too  frequent  irregulari- 
ties that  occur  in  the  courfe  of  war  between  maritime  nations. 
The  paragraph  is  a  copy  of  a  fimilar  one  contained  in  the  fif- 
teenth article  of  the  commercial  treaty  between  France  and 
Great  Britain,  concluded  in  1786,  and  agrees  with  the  four- 
teenth article  of  our  treaty  with  Holland.  In  order  to  guard 
ftill  more  effectually  againft  the  injuries  to  which  the  citizens 
and  fubjects  may  be  expoled  from  the  private  ihips  of  war  of 
e^ch  other,  the  next  paragraph  ftipulates,  that  ail  commanders 
of  privateers,  before  they  receive  their  commiihons,  fhall  be  fub- 
jetted  to  give  fecurity,  by  at  leaft  two  rciponfible  fureties,  who 
have  no  intereft  in  the  privateer,  in  the  fum  of  fifteen  hundred 
pounds  ftcrling,  or  fix  thouland  fix  hundred  and  fixty-fix  dol- 
lars;  or,  if  the  privateer  is  manned  with  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  men,  in  the  fum  of  three  thoufar.d  pounds  fter- 
ling,  or  thirteen  thoufand  three  hundred  and  thirty-three  dol- 
lars, to  fatisfy  all  damages  and  injuries  committed  by  fuch  pri- 
vateers, her  officers,  or  any  of  her  men,  againft  the  tenor  of 
the  treaty,  or  the  laws  and  inftru£tions  for  the  regulation  of 
their  conduct  •,  and  in  cafe  of  aggreffion,  the  coinmiffion  of 
fuch  privateer  (hall  be  re-called  and  made  void. 


242  Camillus— No.  XXXIV. 

This  particular  regulation  has  been  frequently  introduced  in 
modern  treaties,  and  exifts  in  this  precife  fhape  in  the  lafl  trea- 
ty of  commerce  beeween  Fiance  and  Great  Britain;  I  have 
found  no  initance  where  a  larger  fum  has  been  mentioned.  It 
has,  with  little  confideration,  been  made  an  objection  to  this 
regulation,  that  the  amount  of  the  bonds  are  not  adequate  to 
compenfate  or  fatisfy  the  damages  that  may  be  committed  by 
thefe  privateers. 

The  preceding  part  of  the  article  gives  the  injured  party  a 
remedy  agaiml  the  pcrfons  and  eftates  of  the  aggreffors  ;  the 
bonds  are  not  required  for  the  exelufive  purpofe  of  being  the 
fund,  to  which  the  injured  may  have  recourfe  for  fatisfaclion  ; 
but  principally  for  the  purpofe  of  excluding  from  the  command 
of  priw.teers,  thofe  difiblutc  and  irregular  characters,  who  are 
not  retrained  by  either  moral  or  political  tics,  and  for  whofe 
good  behaviour,  refponfible  and  difinterefted  men  would  not 
become  bondfmen.  The  fame  principle  is  developed  in  the  civil 
adminiftration  of  every  nation.  In  cafes  of  pecuniary  trull,  it 
is  a  common  and  ufeful  precaution,  to  require  furety  for  the 
faithful  difcharge  of  the  office  ;  and  the  principal  advantage  of 
this  regulation  is  to  fecure  the  employment  of  virtuous  and  up- 
right officers.  The  amount  of  the  bonds  required  on  thefe  oc- 
cafions  is  fufficient  for  this  purpofe,  though  inferior  to  the  pro- 
perty confided  to  them. 

Thus  the  treafurer  of  the  United  States,  who  has  the  cuf- 
tody  of  millions,  gives  bonds  for  only  one  hundred  and  fifty 
thou  fa  nd  dollars,  the  collectors  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
for  fifty  and  fixty  thoufand  dollars;  fums  very  far  fhort  of  the 
public  money  of  which  they  are  in  the  receipt,  yet  fufficient  to 
fecure  the  public  againfr.  characters  of  doubtful  integrity.  The 
adequacy  of  the  fums,  in  the  particular  cafe,  is  moreover  evi- 
denced by  the  law  and  practice  of  our  own  country.  In  the  re- 
folution  of  congrefs,  of  the  third  of  April  1776,  which,  fo 
far  as  regards  this  point,  remained  in  force  throughout  the  A- 
merican  war,  congrefs  required  that  the  commander  of  every 
privateer,  before  his  commiffion  fhould  be  delivered  to  him, 
fhould  give  bonds,  with  fureties,  to  the  prefident  of  congrefs, 
in  the  fum  of  five  thoufand  dollars,  if  '.he  veffei  was  of  or  un- 
der one  hundred  tons;  and  of  ten  thoufand  dollars,  if  the  vef- 
fei was  upwards  of  one  hundred  tons,  to  obferve  the  rules  and 
inftructions  prefcribed  for  their  government.  Thefe  fums  are 
one  quarto;  iati  thefe  required  by  the  ;rt;<.le  before  us. 

The  latt  par3giaph  requiring  the  judges  of  the  admiralty 
courts  to  furniih  formal  and  duly  aurhenticat  :  copies  of  their 
proceedings  in  caf(  s  of  the  cu:  ireflels  or  cargoes, 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXIV.  243 

belonging  to  the  citizens  or  fubjeots  of  the  parties,  is  purfuant  to 
that  reafonable  courfe  of  proceeding,  which  ought  always  in 
this  and  fimilar  cafes  to  prevail. 

The  twentieth  article,  which  is  in  prevention  of  piracy,  ha 
the  fanclion  of  numerous  precedents.  A  pirate  is  the  common 
enemy  of  all  mankind. — All,  therefore,  fliould  unite  in  refuting 
him  alhftance  and  refuge,  and  in  the  eltablifhmcnt  of  fuch  re- 
gulations relative  to  the  fale  of  his  plunder,  as,  by  (hutting 
againft  him  every  market,  may  thereby  annihilate  the  motives 
to  his  piracy. 

The  twenty-firft  article  fiipulates,  that  the  citizens  and  fub- 
jecls  of  the  parties,  (hall  do  no  acls  of  huflility  or  violence 
againft  each  other,  nor  accept  commiffions  or  inftrucYions  fo 
to  act  from  any  foreign  ftate  being  an  enemy  to  the  other  par- 
ty.— That  the  enemies  of  either  nation  (hall  not  be  allowed  to 
invite,  or  endeavour  to  enlift,  in  their  military  fervice,  any  of 
the  citizens  or  fubjecls  of  the  other  ;  and  the  laws,  prohibit- 
ing fuch  offences,  are  to  be  punctually  executed.  The  article 
farther  ftipulates,  if  any  citizen  or  fubjeel  of  either  party,  who 
has  accepted  of  a  foreign  commiffion  to  arm  a  privateer  againit 
the  other,  it  fliall  be  lawful  for  the  faid  party  to  treat  and  pu- 
nifh  the  faid  citizen  or  fubjeel,  having  fuch  c^nmiffcr.y  as  a 
pirate. 

The  general  tenor  of  this  article  is  in  comformity  with  the 
fpirit  of  our  preceding  laws  on  this  fubjeel ;  it  is  moreover  in 
perfect  unifon  with  the  duties  of  neutrality  ;  thofe  duties  which 
a  jult  regard  to  the  principles  of  integrity,  as  well  as  our  en> 
lightened  purfuit  of  cur  own  inierelt,  require  us  faithfully  to 
perform. 

Two  objections  have  been  offered  againft  this  article ;  one, 
that  it  precludes  fuch  of  our  citizens  as,  with  a  view  of  acquir- 
ing military  knowledge,  would  otherwife  engage  volunteers  in 
foreign  fervice — the  other,  that  it  makes  every  citizen  ar.d  fub- 
jeel:, of  either  party,  who  has  accepted  a  foreign  commiffion  to 
arm  a  privateer  againft  the  other,  and  who  fliall  be  taken  in 
poffelfion  of  fuch  commillion,  liable  to  be  punifhed  as  a  pirate. 

In  refpecl  to  the  firft  objection,  if,  by  a  rigorous  conftrucli- 
011,  the  cafe  is  included  within  the  prohibition,  it  fhould  be  re- 
marked, that  it  is  applicable  only  to  fuch  engagements  as  com- 
mence and  are  made  .in  time  of  mutual  war.  If  we  have  citi- 
zens, who,  with  the  view  of  military  education,  are  inclined 
to  engage  in  foreign  fervice,  though  from  paft  experience  there 
is  not  much  reafon  to  conclude  tl.at  the  examples  would  be  nu- 
merous, they  have  full  feope,  as  1  understand  the  article,  in  the 
periods  of  peace,  to  enter  into  any  of  the  regular  armies  of 


244  (JAMILLLtS—  No.    XXXI V* 

Europe,  that  they  may  prefer ;  and  being  thus  engaged*,  they 
are  free  to  make  the  campaigns  of  war  againft  Great  Britain, 
if  that  is  their  pafTion,  without  injuring  this  article.  The  pro- 
hibition feems  to  be  againft  engaging  in  the  military  fervice  of  a 
nation,  previouily  in  the  condition  of  "  enar.y"  to  one  of  the 
parties. 

The  fecond  objection  has  even  lefs  planfibility  than  the  firft) 
the  difingenuous  means  that  have  been  ufed  to  excite  a  repro- 
bation of  thisclaufc  of  the  article,  manifeft  the  want  of  truth 
and  patriotism  of  thofe  who  have  employed  them:  paflion  and 
the  fpirit  of  oppofition  have  aflerted,  that  the  provifion  before 
us  is  fo  extenfive  as  to  place  the  fubordinate  officers  and  private 
men,  on  board  of  a  privateer,  within  the  predicament  of  her 
commander ;  nay,  that  all  perfons,  citizens,  or  fubje£ts,  of  ei- 
ther nation,  who  would  accept  commiflions,  or  enter,  in  any 
capacity,  in  a  foreign  army  or  navy,  would,  in  confequence 
of  this  ftipuiation,  be  liable  to  be  treated  and  punifhed  as  pi- 
rates. It  is  fufficient, . after  noticing  thefe  attempts  to  impofe 
upon  the  public,  to  obferve  that  the  ftipuiation  exprefsly  con- 
fines the  punifhment,  in  queftion,  to  the  commanders  of  pri- 
vateers, who,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  the  clear 
and  equitable  obligations  of  the  members  of  a  neutral  nation, 
(ball  be  taken  with  fuch  com  million;  and  that  it  does  not  ex* 
tend  to  the  under  officers  or  crew,  much  lefs  to  fuch  perfons,  as, 
contrary  to  the  preceding  inhibition  of  the  article,  fhould  accept 
commiifions  in  a  foreign  army  or  navy.  In  refpeel  to  fuch  mif- 
demeahors  in  all  cafes  (except  that  of  equipping  and  command* 
ing  a  privateer,  which  will  cxpofe  the  commander,  when  taken, 
to  be  punifned  as  a  pirate)  the  offence  is  cognizable  only  by  the 
nation  within  whofe  jurisdiction  the -offence  is  committed,  or 
of  which  the  offender  is  a  citizen,  or  fubje6t ;  and,  by  eur  laws, 
is  punilhable  only  by  fine  and  imprifonment. 

A  perverfion  of  the  fenfe  of  the  claufe,  ftipulating,  that 
•'  the  law  againft  all  fuch  offences  and  aggreffions  fhallbe  punc* 
tually  executed,"  has  been  attempted,  though  nothing  can  be 
be  more  innocent  or  unexceptionable.  Its  plain  meaning  is,  that 
each  party,  in  the  cafes  falling  within  its  jurifdiclion,  fhall 
faithfully  put  in  execution  its  own  laws  againlt  the  offences  and 
aggreffions,  in  contravention  of  the  article.  A  ftipuiation  be* 
tween  the  governments,  to  execute  laws  on  a  certain  fubjeel, 
can  mean  nothing  elfe  than  that  each  fhall  execute  its  own 
laws  on  that  fubject,  in  the  cafes  appertaining  to  its  jurifdic- 
tion. 

Though  moft  of  the  objections  preferred  againft  the  treaty 
are  marked  with   that  illiberal  fpirit  which  characterises  th« 


CA  MILL  us— No.  XXXV* 


=4^ 


party  who  have  unceafingly  laboured  to  bring  into  difcredit  the 
government  of  the  country*  yet  few  of  them  have  been  lefs 
veiled  than  this  which  condemns  a  ftipulation  intended  to  curb 
and  reftrain  the  few  diflbJute  and  daring  characters,  who,  from 
the  leuit  worthy  of  all  motives  that  lend  to  military  enterprize, 
might  otherwife  engage  in  this  piratical  warfare. 

What  virtuous  citizen  would  feel  himfelf  jufliued  in  accept- 
ing fuch  command  ?  What  muft  be  the  morals  of  thefe  in- 
flrudlors,  who  contend  for  a  freedom  to  commit,  what  human* 
ity  and  honor  forbid  ?  Every  treaty  that  we  have  concluded 
with  other  nations,  is  enriched  with  this  ftipulation  ;  not  only 
our  own  treaties  but  thofe  between  other  nations  contain  it. 
How  is  it  that  we  no  where  difepver  a  trace  of  difapprobation, 
either  on  the  part  of  our  ftatefolen,  or  from  an  enlightened 
people,  again  ft  a  fefies  of  treaties,  formed  by  different  public 
miniftcrs,  and  ratified  by  a  fucceflion  of  congrefs,  each  of 
which  contains  a  provifion  that  the  crime  of  accepting  a  foreign 
commiffion  to  arm  and  command  a  privateer,  againft  a  nation 
with  whom  we  arc  at  peace,  fhall  be  treated  and  puniihed  as 
piracy  ?  Is  it  that  our  virtue  has  become  lefs  fevere  ?  our  mo- 
rality more  indulgent  ?  or  is  it  that  our  predecellbrs  were  lefs 
vigilant  in  defending  the  rights  of  the  citizens,  than  the  often- 
tatious  patriots  of  the  prefent  day  ?  But  it  is  time  to  difmifs  an 
objection  entirely  deftitute  of  integrity  and  decency. 

CAMILLUS. 


No.  XXXV. 


THE  twenty-fecond  article  bears  upon  its  face  its  own  juf- 
tification — It  is  purfuaot  to  thofe  maxims  which  enlight- 
ened moralifts  recommend,  and  jult  nations  refpett.  It  pre- 
feribes  a  courfe  of  conduct  the  molt  likely  to  procure  fatisfac- 
tion  for  injuries,  and  to  maintain  peace,  and  is  therefore  enti- 
tled to  the  approbation  of  all  good  men  and  real  patriots — It  is 
particularly  valuable  to  a  weak  nation,  or  a  nation  in  its  infan- 
cy, as  an  additional  guard  againft  fudden  and  untorefeen  attacks 
of  more  powerful  rivals. 

The  firft  paragraph  of  the  twenty- third  article,  provides  for 
the  hofpitable  reception  of  the  public,  or  national  iliips  of  war 
of  the  parties,  in  the  ports  of  each  other;  and  engages  that  the 
officers  of  fuch  (hips  fhall  be  free  from  infult,  and  treated  with 
decorum  and  refped. 

Vol.  III.  M  m 


146  Camillus — No.  XXXV. 

The  practice  which  our  government  has  adopted  in  relation 
to  thefe  points,  independent  of  parties,  is  agreeable  to  this 
provifion.  *  And  though  the  flipulation  will  be  of  lefs  import- 
ance to  us  than  it  would  be,  were  we  pofleffed  of  a  refpec"tab!e 
tiaval  force,  yet  it  may  be  ufeful — By  our  treaty  with  France, 
our  (hips  of  war  have  a  right  to  enter  their  ports  only  in  cafe 
of  urgent  neceffity,   and  not  freely  and  for  mere  convenience. 

With  Spain  and  Portugal  we  have  no  treaties,  and  confe- 
quently  not  an  afcertained  or  perfeel  right  to  ufe  their  ports — 
Our  navigation  muft  be  protected  from  the  Barbary  powers  by 
force  or  by  treaty.  It  is  queftionable  whether  the  latter  mode  will 
prove  effectual  without  the  fupport  of  the  former*,  congrefs 
have  therefore  refolved  to  equip  a  fmall  naval  force,  for  the 
fpecial  objecl:  of  protecting  our  trade  againft  the  Algerines, 
and  the  other  Barbary  powers.  Some  port  convenient  to  the 
fcene  of  its  cruifing  will  be  of  effential  advantage  to  the  effici- 
ency and  fuccefs  of  its  employment :  not  only  the  ports  of 
Great  Britain,  but  likewhe  the  port  of  Gibraltar  will,  by  this 
article  of  the  treaty,  be  open  to  us  •,  and  our  frigates  will  be 
there  entitled  to  a  hofpitable  reception,  and  their  officers  to 
that  refpecl  which  fhall  be  due  to  the  commiffions  which  they 
bear. 

The  other  paragraph  of  this  article,  provides,  in  cafe  an  A- 
merican  veffel  by  ftrefs  of  weather,  danger  from  enemies,  or 
other  misfortune,  fhould  be  obliged  to  feek  fhelter  in  any  Bri- 
tifh  port,  into  which,  in  ordinary  cafes,  fuch  veffel  could  not 
claim  to  be  admitted,  that  fhe  fhall  be  hofpitably  received,  per- 
mitted to  refit,  and  to  purchafe  fuch  neceflaries  as  fhe  may 
■want  •,  and,  by  permiffion  of  the  local  government,  to  fell  fuch 
pan  of  her  cargo  as  may  be  neceflary  to  defray  her  expenfes — 
Our  treaty  with  France  contains  a  fimilar  provifion  ;  but  the  re- 
♦ilriclions  with  which  it  is  guarded  are  lefs  than  thofe  of  the  ar- 
ticle before  us. 

The  twenty-fourth  article  ftipulates,  that  it  fhall  not  be  law- 
ful for  any  foreign  privateers,  commiffioned  by  any  nation  at 
war  with  either  of  the  parties,  to  arm  the  veflels,  or  to  fell  or 
exchange  their  prizes  in  the  ports  of  either  of  the  parties  ;  and 
that  they  fhall  not  be  allowed  to  purchafe  more  provifions  than 
fliall  be  neceflary  to  carry  them  to  the  neareft  port  of  the  nati- 
on from  whem  they  received  their  cornmiflion  j  and  the  twen- 
ty-fifth article  ftipulates  that  the  (hips  of  war  and  privateers  of 
either  party,  may  carry  whitherfoever  they  pleafe,  the  fhips 


*  See  Mr.  Jefferfon's  letter  of  September  9th,  1*93,  to  Mr.  Hammand;  al- 
f«  his  letter,  of  the  fame  date,  to  Mr.  Van  Berckel, 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXV. 


247 


and  goods  taken  from  their  enemy  ;  and  that  fuch  prizes,  on 
their  arrival  in  the  ports  of  the  parties,  (hall  not  be  fearchcd, 
fcized,  detained,  nor  judicially  examined  touching  the  validi- 
ty of  their  capture,  but  may  freely  depart — and  furthermore, 
that  no  fhelter  or  refuge  fhall  be  given  in  the  ports  of  one  of 
the  parties  to  fuch  as  have  made  prizes  upon  the  citizens  or 
fubjects  of  the  other.  Though  the  law  of  nations  is  explicit,  that 
one  nation  having  formed  a  particular  ftipuhtion  with  another, 
is  not  capable,  by  a  fubfequent  treaty  with  a  third  nation,  to 
do  away,  or  annul  its  former  ilipulations,  but  that  the  elder 
treaty,  in  fuch  cafe,  remains  in  full  force,  notwithftanding 
fuch  pofterior  and  contradictory  treaty  ;  yet,  in  order  to  re- 
move all  cavil  on  this  point,  and  to  maintain  a  fcrupulous  re- 
gard to  good  faith,  even  in  appearance  as  well  as  in  reality,  and 
efpecially  in  relation  to  our  treaty  with  France,  the  article  fur- 
ther declares  "  that  nothing  in  the  treaty  contained  fhall  be 
conftrued,  or  operate  contrary  to  former  and  exiiiing  public 
treaties  with  other  fovereigns  or  dates,"  and  adds,  that  neither 
of  the  parties,  while  they  continue  in  friendfhip,  will  form 
any  treaty  inconfiftcnt  with  this,  and  the  preceding  article — 
this  laft  claufe  has  been  cenfurcd  as  an  undue  reftraint  ;  while 
it  is  in  facT  a  mere  redundancy,  as  long  as  a  treaty  between 
two  nations  continues  in  force,  it  is  againft  good  faith  for  ei- 
ther to  form  a  treaty  with  another  nation  inconfiftent  with  it — 
if  the  treaty  is  once  difclofed,  by  whatever  mean?,  no  treaty 
with  another  nation  can  be  inconfiftent  with  it — The  claufe, 
therefore,  only  converts  into  an  exprefs  promife,  what  without 
it  is  an  implied  one,  that  the  parties  will  not  contravene  their 
ftipulations  with  each  other  by  repugnant  engagements  with  a 
third  party — The  difingenuity  on  this  point  has  gone  fo  far  as 
to  torture  the  claufe  into  a  pofitive  ftipulation  againft  any  trea- 
ty with  another  power  conferring  peculiar  advantages  of  com- 
merce upon  that  power.  It  is  a  fufficient  reply  to  this,  that  the 
claufe  is  exprefsly  confined  to  the  twenty-fourth  and  twenty- 
fifth  articles  ;  determining  nothing  as  to  the  other  articles  of 
the  treaty.  The  general  principle  of  this  laft  objection  has  been 
fufficiently  difcuilcd  elfewherc. 

The  artiele  concludes  with  a  mutual  engagement,  that  nei- 
ther of  the  parties  will  permit  the  (hips,  or  goods,  of  the  other 
to  be  taken  within  cannon  (hot  of  the  coaft,  nor  in  any  of  the 
bays,  ports,  or  rivers  of  their  territories  ;  and  in  cafe  of  fuch 
capture,  the  party,  whofe  territorial  rights  are  violated,  fhall 
ufe  his  utmoll  endeavours  to  obtain  full  f at  is  facl  ion  for  the  vef- 
fels  or  goods  taken.  This  llipubtion  is  conformable  to  the  du-  . 
ty  and  practice  of  nations  who  have  entered  iato  no  fpeeul  eu* 


248  Ca  mill  us- No.  XXXV. 

gagements  requiring  the  fame,  and  agrees  with  a  common  pro* 
virion  in  public  treaties. 

Hitherto  we  have  prudently  avoided  granting  to  any  nation 
a  right  to  arm  their  privateers  or  to  fell  their  prizes  in  our  ports; 
our  laws  are  explicit  in  prohibiting  fuch  equipments ;  and  the 
exclufion  thereof,  contained  in  the  twenty-fourth  article,  is 
agreeable  to  the  declared  policy  of  the  country.  Wo  have  en- 
gaged in  our  treaty  with  France  to  prohibit  her  enemies  from 
felling  their  prizes  within  our  ports  j  but  not  having  engaged 
to  permit  France  to  fell  her  prizes  therein,  we  were  free  to 
agree  with  Great  Britain,  that  her  enemies  fhali,  iikewife, 
be  prohibited  from  felling  their  prizes  within  our  territory.  A 
elaufe  in  the  twenty-fifth  article  denies  all  refuge  to  the  (hips 
of  war  and  privateers  that  have  made  prizes  upon  either  of  the 
parties;  and  the  lall  elaufe  of  the  twenty-fourth  article  ftipu- 
lates,  that  foreign  privateers,  enemies  to  either  of  the  parties, 
fhall  not  be  allowed  to  purchafe  more  provisions  than  iulHcient 
to  carry  them  to  the  neareft  port  of  the  nation  from  whom  they 
received  their  commilTions. 

Thefe  claufes  will  operate  only  againfl  fuch  nations  as  have- 
not,  by  an  elder  treaty,  fecured  a  right  of  reception  in  the 
ports  of  the  parties — Still,  however,  it  is  alleged  that  thefe 
articles  violate  our  treaty  with  France.  It  has  already  been  ob- 
ferved  that  the  treaty  contains  a  clear  and  explicit  agreement 
of  the  parties,  excepting  from  its  operation  all  former  exiftirig 
public  treaties — Our  treaty  with  France  is  an  antecedent  and 
exifting  public  treaty,  and  confequently  excepted,  in  all  its  parts, 
from  the  operation  of  the  treaty  before  us — Whatever  right  or 
privilege,  therefore,  is  fecured  to  France  in  virtue  of  that 
treaty,  (he  will  continue  to  enjoy,  whether  the  fame  refpects 
the  reception  of  her  public  (hips  of  war,  privateers  or  prizes, 
in  our  ports,  or  the  exclufion  therefrom  of  thofe  of  her  ene- 
mies. 

Could  there  be  a  doubt  on  this  point,  the  practice  of  other 
nations,  and  ejpfecialjy  that  of  France,  on  the  very  point,  would 
effectually  remove  it. — The  fifteenth  and  thirty-fixth  articles  of 
the  commercial  treaty  of  Utrecht,  between  France  and  Great 
Britain,  contain  the  fame  Uipulations  as  the  twenty-fourth  and 
twenty-lifth  articles  of  the  treaty  before  us.  That  treaty  was  in 
exiftence  and  force,  at  the  time  of  forming  our  treaty  with 
France,  yet  France  found  no  difficulty  in  the  infertion  of  the 
fame  Uipulations  in  her  treaty  with  us.  She  could  not  have  con- 
fidered  rheir  infertion  in  the  treaty  wjth  us  as  a  violation  of  her 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  otherwife  good  faith  would  have  re- 
trained her — The  war  that  foon   after  took  place    between 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXV.  249 

France  and  Great  E.itain,  diffolved  the  treaty  of  Utrecht.  Our 
treaty  with  France  remained  in  force  ;  yet,  in  the  year  one 
thoufand  feven  hundred  and  eighty-fix,  France  and  Great  Bri- 
tain entered  into  a  commercial  treaty,  the  fix  tee  nth  and  fortieth 
articles  of  which  renew  the  ftipulations  contained  in  the  fif- 
teenth and  thirty-fix th  articles  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht. 

If  France  was  free,  firfl  to  form  thefe  ftfpulations  with  us, 
in  1778,  notwithstanding  her  prior  and  ex  1  fling  treaty  wi  h  us- 
we  muft  be  equally  free  in  a  treaty  with  the  fame,  or  any  omer 
power,  to  agree  to  fimilar  llipulations.  Both  were  free,  and 
neither  violates  their  former  en  ts,  hy  afienting,  as  we 

have  done,  to  thefe  tlipulations  in  a  poftefibr  treaty. 

It  is  further  alleged,  that  thefe  articles  are  injurious  to  the 
intereil  of  the  United  States,  becaufe  they  prohibit,  in  certain 
cafes,  foreign  privateers  10  rendezvous  in  our  port*,  and  to  fell 
within  cur  territory,  the  prizes  they  may  have  taken. — If  it  is 
deniable  to  render  out  principal  fea  ports  and  cities  fcenes  of 
riot  and  confufion,  if  it  is  politic  to  divide  our  citizens,  by  in- 
fufing  into  their  minds  the  holt iie  fp.irit  with  which  the  nations 
at  war  are  animated  againft  each  other,  if  we  are  prepared  to 
fee  the  proflration  of  public  authority,  and  to  behold  the  laws 
trampled  upon  by  armed  banditti,  if  we  are  r<  ady  to  invite  our 
citizens  to  abandon  their  regular  and  ufeful  employments,  and 
to  engage,  as  adventurers,  even  againit  each  other,  in  the  pur- 
fuit  of  plunder,  then  is  the  objection  well-founded,  then  is  the 
reflraint  pernicious,  then  is  the  llipulatioh  worthy  of  condem- 
nation— But  if  to  eftablilh  tlie  reverie  of  all  this,  is  the  effort 
and  aim  of  every  wife  and  prudent  government,  the  itipulation 
in  que  ft  ion  demands  the  approbation  of  ail  virtuous  citizens. 

But  were  none  of  thefe  confeouenccs  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  free  admiifion  of  the  privateers  of  all  nations  engaged 
in  war,  and  the  permiilion  to  fell  their  pirn: der,  it  would,  not- 
withstanding, be  againlt  the  interells  of  the  United  States  to 
ailuw  the  fame.  It  is  a  found  commercial  principle,  that  the 
interefl  of  buyers,  as  well  as  fellers,  is  bed  promoted  by  a  free 
competition. — The  great  number  of  the  fellers  of  foreign  ma- 
nufactures and  productions,  afford  the  belt  market  for  the  buy- 
ers— The  great  number  of  buyers  of  oui  productions,  afford 
the  bed  market  for  the  fellers — foreign  privateers  are  precari- 
ous fellers,  and  buyers  only  for  their  own  confumption — They 
drive  away  and  banifh  from  our  markets,  both  buyers  and  fell- 
ers. When  our  coafls  axe  lined  with  foreign  privateers  that 
rendezvous  in  our  ports,  the  merchant  ihips  of  ali  nations,  not 
excepting  our  own,  will  be  liable  to  interruption,  and  difcou- 
raged  from  coming  to  our  markets;  and  thefe  of  the  belligerent 


250  Ca  MILL  us — No.  XXXV. 

powers  will  be  generally  excluded — Our  markets  might,  per- 
haps,  derive  fupplies  from  the  prizes  thatfuch  privateers  fliould 
take,  fo  as,  in  fome  degree,  to  compenfatc  fgr  the  deficiency 
that  would  proceed  from  the  exclufion  of  foreign  merchantmen  ; 
but  this  fupply  would  be  uncertain,  irregular,  ill-afforted,  and. 
partial,  while  the  principal  commercial  detriment  would  exift 
without  mitigation,  that  of  a  ptrtial  or  total  deftruction  of  fo- 
reign competition  in  the  purchafe  of  our  agricultural  and  other 
productions. 

If,  moreover,  it  is  the  duty,  as  well  as  the  intereft,  of  the 
United  States,  to  obferve  an  exact  and  fcrupulous  neutrality, 
amidft  the  wars  of  other  nations,  one  of  the  mod  efficacious 
means  of  effecting  that  purpofe,  will  be,  to  remove  every  temp- 
tation that  might  lead  our  citizens  to  an  oppofite  courfe — No 
allurement  would  be  more  likely  to  feduce  them  from  their  duty 
than  that  which  is  offered  by  the  expected  gains  of  privateering 
— no  avenue  of  political  mifchief  mould,  therefore,  be  more 
carefully  clofed. 

If  thefe  articles  are  exceptionable,  in  any  refpect,  it  is  that 
in  imitation  of  the  analogous  articles  in  our  treaty  with  France,  • 
they  allow  the  privateers  of  the  parties,  in  cafes  not  inconfiit- 
ent  with  former  treaties,  to  rendezvous  in,  and  their  prizes 
to  be  brought  into,  each  others  ports  and  harbours  :  It  would, 
in  my  judgment,  have  been  the  true'policy  of  the  United  States, 
as  well  as  with  the  view  of  maintaining  an  impartial  and  de- 
cided neutrality  in  the  wars  of  Europe,  from  a  participation  in 
which  our  remote  fituation,  with  due  prudence,  is  an  exemp- 
tion; as  likewife,  in  order  to  promote,  in  the  moft  advantage- 
ous manner,  our  national  profperity,  totally  and  for  ever  to  have 
excluded  all  foreign  privateers  and  prize*  from  our  ports  and 
harbours. 

But  having  entered  into  thefe  ftipulations  with  France,  by 
which  {lie  has  the  ufe  of  all  our  ports  againft  all  other  nations, 
we  having  the  ufe  of  her  ports  only  againft  thofe  nations  who 
have  not  an  elder  treaty  with  her,  it  would  have  manifefted  an 
unwife  partiality  to  have  refufed  to  enter  into  fimilar  ftipulations 
with  other  nations  who  might  defire  them. 

The  twenty-fixth  article  provides,  in  cafe  of  a  rupture  be- 
tween the  parties,  that  the  merchants  and  others  of  each 
nation,  refiding  in  the  dominions  of  the  other,  may  remain  and 
continue  their  trade  during  good  behaviour?  in  cafe,  however, 
their  conduct  lhoukl  become  fufpicious,  they  may  be  removed, 
and  a  twelvemonth  after  the  publication  of  the  order  of  remo- 
val is  to  be  allowed  for  that  purpofe  :  But  this  term  is  not  to  be 
granted  to  fuch  perforis  as"  act  contrary  to  law,  or  are  guilty  of 


Ca  MILL  US—  No.  XXXV.  25 1 

any  offence  againft  the  government :  all  fuch  perfons  maybe? 
Forthwith  removed  or  fent  out  of  the  refpective  dominions  of 
the  parties.  The  refidue  of  the  article  is  calculated  to  afcertain 
the  condition  of  the  parties,  when  the  rupture  (hall  be  deemed 
to  exift — each  nation  remains  the  exclufive  judge  of  the  foreign- 
ers among  them,  and  will  be  able  to  decide  from  their  behavi- 
our, how  far  their  refidence  may  be  compatible  with  the  public 
fafety.  In  cafe  of  fufpicicn  only,  that  their  refidence  will  prove 
detrimental,  they  may  order  them  to  depart,  reafonable  time 
being  allowed  them  to  collect  their  effects — On  the  one  hand, 
the  article  affords  to  the  parties  perfect  fecurity  againft  the  irre- 
gular and  fufpicious  conduct  of  foreigners,  who  may  be  among 
them  on  the  breaking  out  of  war,  and,  on  the  other,  confultj 
with  that  liberality  which  the  modern  ufageof  nations  fanctions, 
the  fafety  and  convenience  of  thofe,  who,  under  the  faith  of 
the  refpective  governments,  have  chofen  a  refidence  in  the  do- 
minions of  the  parties. — Our  treaties  with  France,  Holland, 
and  Sweden,  fecure  to  the  merchants  of  the  refpective  parties 
a  limited  period,  after  the  commencement  of  war,  within 
which  they  may  collect  their  effects,  and  remove  ;  and  the  arti- 
cle before  us  relative  to  this  fubject,  is  a  tranfeript  of  the 
fecond  article  of  the  treaty  of  commerce,  of  1786,  between 
France  and  Great  Britain — The  objection,  therefore,  to  there 
being  a  certain  term  within  which  they  cannot  be  removed  up- 
on bare  fufpicion  lies  againft  our  other  treaties  and  againft 
alruoft  all  the  treaties  of  Europe  for  many  years— The  pretence 
to  order  away  upon  mere  fufpicion  would  defeat  all  the  llipuh- 
tions,  that  allow  a  certain  term  to  collect,  fell,  and  remove" 
debts  and  effects  ;  and  for  that  reafon  could  net  be  fupported. 

The  remainder  of  the  article  which  gives  an  option  to  each 
party,  either  to  requeft  the  recall,  or  immediately  to  fend  home, 
the  ambaffador  of  the  other  without  prejudice  to  their  mutual 
friendfhip  and  good  underftanding,  is  a  valuable  feature — The 
power  "  immediately  to  fend  home"  without  giving  offence,  avoids 
jnuch  delicate  embarraffment  connected  with  an  application  to 
recall — It  renders  it  eafier  to  arreft  an  intriguing  minifter  in  the 
midft  of  a  dangerous  intrigue,  and  it  is  a  check  upon  the  mini- 
fter by  placing  him  more  completely  in  the  power  of  the  go- 
vernment with  which  he  refides. — Thefe  laft  circumftances  are 
particularly  important  to  a  republic,  one  of  the  chief  dangers 
of  which,  arifes  from  its  expofure  to  foreign  intrigue  and  cor- 
ruption. 

The  twenty-feventh  article,  which  provides  for  the  delivery 
of  all  perfons,  charged  with  murder  or  forgery  committed 
withio  the  jurifdiction  of  one  party,  and  who  have  taken  re* 


6fl  Cam 1 1. 1. us— No.  XXXV. 

fuge  within  the  territories  of  the.other,  is  a  regulation  at  pccii-* 
liar  worth  between  nations  whofe  tcrrirories  arc  contiguous  to 
each  other — Without  fuch  regulation,  the  eafe,  with  which  the 
perpetratdrs  of  thefe  atrocious  crimes,  might  efcape  puniih* 
ment,  efpecially  on  the  frontiers,  by  puffing  out  of  one  jurif- 
dic~t  n  into  the  other,  would,  in  a  great  meafure,  deitroy  the 
fee  ity  agairiu  thefe  offences,  that  arifes  from  the  fear  and 
certainty  of  punilhment — The  provifion,  that  fuch  delivery 
fhall  nor  be  made  unlcfs  upon  the  exhibition  of  fuch  evidence 
of  cri  ni  >  according   to  the  laws   of  the  place  where 

the  fugitive  (hall  be  found,  would  juftify  his  apprehenfion  and 
commitment  for  trial,  if  the  crime  had  there  been  committed, 
will  prevent  vexatious  requifitions,  and  is  a  caution  due  to  the 
rights  of  individuals. 

The  twenty-feventh,  and  concluding  article,  ellablifhes,  that 
the  firft  ten  articles  of  the  treaty,  fhall  be  permanent ;  that  the 
remaining  ones,  except  the  twelfth,  which,  with  the  twenty- 
fifth,  conftitute  the  body  of  the  commercial  part  of  the  treaty, 
(hall  be  limited  in  their  duration  to  twelve  years  ;  and  reciting, 
that  the  twelfth  will  end,  by  its  own  limitation,  at  the  end  o£ 
two  years  after  the  termination  of  the  prefent  European  war, 
further  eftablifhes,  that,  within  the  laft  mentioned  term,  and 
in  time  to  perfect  the  bufinefs  by  the  expiration  of  that  term, 
the  diicuffion  of  the  fubjeel  of  the  twelfth  article  (hall  be  re* 
newed,  and  if  the  parties  cannot  agree  on  fuch  new  arrangement, 
concerning  it,  as  may  be  fatisfaclory,  that  then  all  the  laid  re* 
gaining  articles  (in  other  words,  all  but  the  firft  ten)  fhall  ceafe 
and  expire  together.  This  article,  which  is  an  entirely  inde* 
pendent  one,  obviates  the'  doubt,  affected  to  be  entertained, 
whether  the  exception  in  the  ratification,  with  regard  to  the 
twelfth  article,  did  not  do  away  the  ftipulation  by  which  the 
continuance  of  the  treaty,  except  the  firft  ten  articles,  beyond 
the  term  of  two  years,  after  the  expiration  of  the  war,  is  made 
to  depend  on  a  further  arrangement  of  the  Weft  India  trade. 
This  feparate  article  is  pofitive  and  conclulive,  abfolutcly  an* 
nulling  the  treaty  at  that  time,  if  fuch  an  arrangement  be  not 
made,  and  thereby  places  it  in  the  power  of  either  party  fo  to 
manage  the  matter  as  to  put  an  end  to  all  the  commercial  part 
of  it,  except  what  rehtes  to  inland  trade  and  navigation  with 
the  neighbouring  Britifh  territories,  at  the  end  of  the  lhort  pe- 
riod of  two  years  from  the  termination  of  the  exiftmg  war. 
This  alone  is  fufficient  to  confound  all  the  high-charged  decla- 
mations againlt  the  tendency  of  the  treaty  to  ruin  our  trade  and 
navigation. 

CAMILLU  S. 


£      **3       J 

fto,     ■        .  1. 

T  T  is  now  time  to  fulfil  my  promife  of  an  examination  of 
A  conftitutionality  of  the  treaty.  Of  all  the  objections  which 
have  been  contrived  again  ft  this  inftrumt  nt,  thofe  delating  to 
this  point  are  the  mod  futile — If  there  be  a 'political  problem 
capable  of  complete  demonstration,  the  conftitutionality  of  thd 
treity,  in  all  its  parts,  is  of  this  fort — It  is  even  ciiihcult  to  be-» 
lieve,  that  any  man  in  cither  houfe  of  congrefs,  who  values 
his  reputation  for  difcemment  orGncerity,  will  publicly  hazard 
it  by  a  ferious  attempt  to  controvert  the  petition. 

Ir  is,  neverthelcfs,  too  much  a  fashion  with  feme  politicians, 
when  hard  prefled  on  the  expediency  of  a  meafure,  to  entre 
themfelves  behind  objections  to  its  conftitutionality — Aw 
that  there  is  naturally  in  the  public  mind  a  jealous  fcnfibiiity  to 
objections  of  that  nature,  which  may  predifpofe  againft  a  thing 
othervvife  acceptable,  if  even  a  doubt,  in  this  reipect,  can  be 
railed — They  have  been  too  forward  to  rak«  advantage  of  tins 
propenfity,  without  weighing  the  real  mifehief  of  the  example* 
For,  however  it  may  ferve  a  temporary  purpole,  its  ultimate 
tendency  is,  by  accuftoming  the  people  to  obferve,  that  alarms 
of  this  kind  are  repeated  with  levity  and  without  caufe,  to  pre- 
pare them  for  diftrufting  the  cry  of  danger,  when  it  may  bj 
real :  Yet  the  imprudence  has  been  fuch,  that  there  has  fcarccly 
been  an  important  public  queition,  which  has  not  involved 
more  or  lets  of  tins  fpecies  of  controverfy. 

In  the  prefent  cafe,  the  motivi  .  of  ih  •  who  may  incline 
to  defeat  the  treaty,  are  unufually  ill  I  creating,  it  poihble, 
a  doubt  concerning  its  conftitutionality. 

The  trtaiy,  having  been  ratified  on  both  fides,  the  dilemma 
plainly  is  between  a  violation  of  the  conftitution,  by  the  treaty, 
and  a  violation  of  the  conftitution,  by  obftructing  the  execution 
of  the  treaty* 

The  Vlth.  article  of  the  conftitution  of  the  United  States, 
declares,  that  "  the  conftitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  made  in  purfuance  thereof,  ;  <•    which 

/ball  be  made  under  the  authority  cf  the  U)  ited  Statest  Diall  be  tie 
fupreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the  conftitution  or  laws 
of  any  ftate  to  the  contrary  notwithftanding.  '  A  law  o(  the 
land,  till  revoked  or   annulled,  by  the  authority,  is 

binding,  not  lefs  on  each  branch  of  department  of  th<  iment 

than  on  each  individual  of  the  fociety—  Each  houfe  of  congrefs 
collectively,  as  well  as  the  members  of  it  feparatelyj  are  undejf 
a  conftuutional  obligation  to  obferve  the  injunctions  of  a  pre- 

Vol.  lit.  N  n 


254  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXXVI. 

exifting  law,  and  to  give  it  effect. — If  they  act  othervvife,  they 
infringe  the  confutation  ;  the  theory  of  which  knows,  in  fuch 
cafe,  no  difcretion  on  their  part — To  refort  to  firft  principles 
for  their  juftifieation,  in  affuming  fuch  a  difcretion,  is  to  go 
out  of  the  conftitution  for  an  authority,  which  they  cannot 
find  in  it — it  is  to  ufurp  the  original  character  x:f  the  people 
themfelves — it  is,  in  principle,  to  pro  (Irate  the  government. 

The  cafes  muft  be  very  extraordinary  that  can  excufe  lb  vio- 
lent an  ailumption   of  difcretion.    They   muft  be  of  a  kind  to 
authorize  a  revolution  in  government; — for  every  refort  to  ori- 
ginal principle?,  in  derogation  from  the  eftablifhed  conftitution, . 
partakes  of  this  character. 

Recalling  to  view,  that  all  but  the  firft;  ten  articles  of  the 
treaty  are  liable  to  expire  at  the  termination  of  two  years  after 
the  prefent  war;  if  the  objection  to  it  in  point  of  conftitution- 
aiity  cannot  be  fupported — let  me  afk,  who  is  the  man  hardy 
c::o'ji;h  to  maintain,  that  the  inftrument  is  of  fuch  a  nature  as 
to  jultify  a  revolution  in  government  ? 

ii  this  can  be  anfwered  in  the  affirmative,  adieu  to  all  the 
f.: unties  which  nations  expect  to  derive  from  conftitutions  of 
government.  They  become  mere  bubbles,  fubject  to  be  blown 
away  by  every  breath  of  party — The  precedent  would  be  a  fa- 
tal one — Our  government,  from  being  fixed  and  limited,  would 
become  revolutionary  and  arbitrary — All  the  provifions  which 
our  conftitution,  with  fo  much  folemnity,  ordains  "  for  form- 
ing a  more  perfect  union,  eftablifhing  juftice,  infuring  domef- 
tic  tranquility,  providing  for  the  common  defence,  promoting 
the  general  welfare,  and  fecuring  the  bleffings  of  liberty  to  our- 
felves  and  pofterity,"  evaporate  and  difappear- 

Equally  will  this  be  the  cafe,  if  the  rage  of  party  fpirit  can 
meditate,  if  the  momentary  afcendency  of  party,  in  a  particular 
branch  of  the  government,  can  effect,  and  if  the  people  can  be 
fo  deceived  as  to  tolerare — that  the  prstcr.ee  of  a  violation  of 
the  conftitution  (hall  be  made  the  inftrument  of  its  actual  vio- 
lation. 

This,  however,  cannot  be — There  are  already  convincing 
indications  on  the  very  fubject  before  u9,  that  the  good  fenfe 
of  the  people  will  triumph  over  prejudice  and  the  acts  of  party 
— that  they  will  finally  decide  according  to  their  true  intereft, 
•and  that  anv  tranfient  or  partial  fuperiority,  which  may  exilt,  if 
abufed  for  the  purpofe  of  infracting  the  conftitution,  will  con- 
sign the  perpetrators  of  the  infraction  to  ruin  and  difgrace. 
But  alas!  what  confolation  would  there  be  in  the  ruin  of  a 
party  for  the  ruin  of  the  conftitution  ? 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXVI.  255 

It  is  time  to  enter  on  the  momentous  difcuffion.  The  queftiou 
{hall  be  examined  in  the  four  following  views — 1.  In  relation  to 
the  theory  of  the  conflitution — 2.  In  relation  to  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  undcrftood  by  the  convention  who  framed  it,  and 
by  the  pcopie  who  adopted  it — 3.  In  relation  to  the  practice 
upon  a  fimilar  power  in  the  confederation — 4.  In  relation  to 
the  practice  under  our  prefent  conflitution,  prior  to' the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain — In  all  thefe  views,  the  coiiftitutionalil 
the  treaty  can  be  vindicated  beyond  the  poflibility  of  a  ferious 
doubt. 

1.  As  to  the  theory  of  the  conflitution — The  confutation  of 
the  United  States  diftributes  its  powers  into  three  departments, 
legifiative,  executive,  judiciary. — The  fir  It  article  defines  I 
itructure,  and  fnecifies  the  various  power?,  of  the  legislative  de- 
partment— The  fecond  article  eftablifhcs  the  orgai  and 
powers  of  the  executive  department — The  third  article  dues 
lair.c  with  refpect  to  the  judiciary  department — The  fourth  and 
fifth,  and  fixth  articles,  which  are  the  laft,  are.  a  mifcellany  of 
particular  proviiions. 

The  firft  article  declares  that  "  ail  legijlaiivp  power  granted 
by  the  conftitution  (hall  be  vefled  in  a  congrefs  of  the  Unhed 
States,  which  Hull  coufift  of  a  fenate  and  a  houfe  of  repre- 
sentatives.'' 

'The  fecond  article,  which  organizes  and  regulates  the  exe- 
cutive department,  declares  that  the  "  executive  power  fhall 
be  veiled  in  a  prefident  of  the  United  States  of  America  •" 
and  proceeding  to  detail  particular  authorities  of  the  executive, 
it  declares  that  the  t(  prefident  (hail  have  power,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  content  of  the  fenate,  to  make  treaties,  provided 
two-thirds  of  the  fenators  prefent  concur."  There  is  in  no  part  of 
the  conftitution  any  explanation  of  this  power  to  make  treaties, 
any  definition  of  its  objects,  or  delineation  of  its  bounds — The 
only  other  provifion  in  the  conftitution  refpecting  it,  is  in 
fixth  article,  which  provides,  as  already  noticed,  that  all  treaties 
made  or  which  fhall  be  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  fhall  be  the  fupr'eme  law  of  the  land; — and  this  notwith- 
standing any  thing  in  the  conftitution  or  laws  of  any  ftate  to 
the  contrary. 

It  was  impoffible  for  words  more  comprehenfive  to  be  ufed 
than  thole  which  grant  the  power  to  make  treaties.  They  are 
fuch  as  would  naturally  be  employed,  to  confer  a  plenipotentiary 
authority — A  power  "  to  make  treaties,"  granted  in  thefe  in- 
definite terms,  extends  to  all  kinds  of  treaties,  and  with  all  the 
latitude  which  fuch  a  power,  under  any  form  of  government, 
can  poflefs — the  power  «  to  mohfn  implies  a  power  to  act   •     ', 


*5<*  C.\MTI.LUO— No.    XXXVI. 

ritaiively  and  conclujively^  independent  of  the  after-claufe  which 
exprefsly  places  treaties  among  the  fupreme  laws  of  the  land. 
The  thing  to  be  made  is  a  treaty. 

^Viih  regard  to  the  obj  the  treaty,  there  being  no  fpe- 

(•ification,  there  is,  of  courfe,  a  cbarte  blanche.  The  general 
propofition  mull,  therefore,  !>e,  that  whatever  is  a  proper  fub- 
ject  of  compact,  between  nation  and  nation,  maybe  embraced 
by  a  treaty  between  the  prefident  of  the  United  States,  with 
the  advice  and  confent  of  the  fenate,  and  the  correfponcjerit 
enjan  of  a  foreign  ftate, 

The  authority  being  general,  it  comprizes,  of  courfe,  what? 
ever  cannot  be  fhown  to  be  neceffarily  an  exception  to  it. 

The  only  constitutional  exception  to  the  power  of  making 
treaties  is,  that  it  (hall  not  change  the  conftitution  \  which 
refults  from  this  fundamental  maxim,  that  a  delegated  authority 
cannot  alter  the  conftituting  act,  unlefs  fo  exprefsly  authorized 
by  the  conftituting  power.  An  agent  cannot  new-model  his  own 
COmmiflioh. — A  treaty,  for  example,  cannot  transfer  die  I 
lative  power  to  the  executive  department,  nor  the  power  of  this 
laft  department  to  the  judiciary  ;  in  other  words,  it  cannot  Hi* 
pulate  that  the  prefident,  and  not  congrefs,  fhall  make  laws  for 
the  United  States,  that  the  judges,  and  not  the  prefident,  fhall 
command  the  national  forces. 

Again,  there  is  alio  a-  national  exception  to  the  power  of 
making  treaties,  as  there  is  to  every  other  delegated  power, 
which  refpecls  abufes  of  authority  in  palpable  and  extreme 
cafes.  On  natural  principles,  a  treaty,  which  {liquid  manjfeftly 
betray  or  faenfice  the  private  interefts  of  the  ftate,  would  be  null. 
But  this  prefents  a  queltion  foreign  from  that  of  the  modifica- 
tion or  diitnbution  of  conftnutional  powers.  It  applies  to  the 
cafe  of  the  pernicious  exercife  of  a  power,  where  there  is 
legal  competency.  Thus  the  power  of  treaty,  though  extend- 
ing to  the  right  of  making  alliances  offenfive  and  defenfive, 
might  not  be  exercifed  in  making  an  alliance,  fo  injurious  to 
the  ftate  as  to  jellify  the  non-obkrvance  of  the  contract. 

Beyond  thefe  exceptions  to  the  power,  none  occurs  that  can 
be  fupported. 

Thole  which  have  been  infilled  upon,  towards  invalidating 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  are  not  even  plaufible.  They 
amount  to  this,  that  a  treaty  can  eita'olilli  nothing  between  the 
United  States  and  a  foreign  nation,  which  it  is  the  province 
of  the  legislative  authority  to  regulate  in  reference  to  the 
United  States  alone.  It  cannot,  for  inftance,  titablilh  a  parti- 
cular rule  of  commercial  intercourfe  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  j  becaufe  it  is  provided  in  the  conilitu* 


Camillus— No.  XXXVL  257 

don,  that  congrefs  "  /ball  have  power  to  regulate  commerce  with 
foreign  nations."  This  is  equivalent  to  affirming  that  all  the  ob- 
jects upon  which  the  legiflative  power  may  aft,  in  relation  to 
our  country,   are  excepted  out  of  the  power  to  make  treaties. 

Two  obvious  confederations  refute  this  doctrine.  One,  that 
the  power  to  make  treaties,  and  the  power  to  make  laws,  are 
different  things,  operating  by  different  means,  upon  different 
fubjects  ;  the  other,  that  the  conftruction  refulting  from  fuch 
a  doctrine  would  defeat  the  power  to  make  treaties,  while  its 
oppofite  reconciles  this  power  with  the  power  of  making  laws. 

The  power  to  make  law;,  is,  "  the  power  of  pronouncing 
authoritatively  the  will  of  the  nation  as  to  all  perfons  and 
things  over  which  it  has  jurifdiction:"  or  it  may  be  defined  to 
be  "  the  power  of  prefcribing  rules  binding  upon  all  perfons 
and  things  over  which  the  nation  has  jurifdiction."  It  acts  com- 
pulfively  upon  all  perfons,  whether  foreigners  or  citizens,  and 
upon  all  things  within  the  i<'iritory  of  fuch  nation,  and  alfo 
upon  its  own  citizens  and  their  property  without  its  territory 
in  certain  cafes  and  under  certain  limitations.  But  it  can  have 
no  obligatory  action  whatfoever  upon  a  foreign  nation  or  upon 
any  perfon  or  thing  withiq  the  jurifdi&ion  of  a  foreign  na- 
tion. 

The  power  of  treaty,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  power  by 
agreement,  convention)  or  cotnpacl,  to  eltablifh  rules  binding  upon 
two  or  more  nations,  their  refpechve  citizens  and  property. 
The  rule  ettablifhed  derives  its  reciprocal  obligation  from  pro- 
mife,  from  the  faith  which  the  contracting  parties  pledge  to 
each  other — not  from  the  power  of  either  to  prefcribe  a  rule 
for  the  other.  It  is  not  here  the  will  of  a  fuperior  that  com- 
mands; it  is  the  confent  of  two  independent  parties  that  con- 
tract. 

The  means  which  the  power  of  legiflation  employs,  are  laws 
which  it  enacts,  or  rules  which  it  enjoins  ;  the  fubjttl  upon 
which  it  acts  is  the  nation  of  whom  it  is,  the  perfons  and  pro- 
perty within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  nation.  The  means,  which 
the  power  of  treaty  employs,  are  contracts  with  other  nations, 
who  may  or  may  not  enter  into  them — The  fubjecls  upon  which 
it  acts  are  the  nations  contracting  and  thofe  perfons  and  things 
of  each  to  which  the  contract  relates — Though  a  treaty  may 
effect  what  a  law  can,  yet  a  law  cannot  effect  what  a  treaty 
does.  Thefe  difcriminations  are  obvious  and  decifive  ;  and  how- 
ever the  operation  of  a  treaty  may,  in  fome  things,  refemble 
that  of  a  law,  no  two  ideas  are  more  diftin£tj  than  that  of  legif- 
lating  and  that  of  contracting. 


2$S  C  A  M I L  L  U  S— No.  XXXVI. 

It  follows  thi t  there  is  no  ground  foT  the  inference  pretended 
to  be  drawn,  that  the  legiflative  powers  of  congrefs  are  ex- 
cepted out  of  the  power  of  making  treaties.  It  is  the  province 
of  the  latter  to  do  what  the  former  cannot  do — Congrefs  (to 
purfue  {till  the  cafe  of  regulating  trade)  may  regulate  by  law, 
our  own  trade  and  that  which  foreigners  come  to  carry  on  with 
us  ;  but  they  cannot  regulate  the  trade  which  we  may  go  to 
carry  on  inforeign  countries;  they  can  give  to  us  no  rights,  no 
privileges  there.  This  mult  depend  on  the  will  and  regulations 
of  thofe  countries  ;  and,  confequently,  it  is  the  province  of  the 
power  of  treaty  to  cftablifh  the  rules  of  commercial  intercourfe 
between  foreign  nations  and  the  United  States.  The  legiflative 
may  regulate  cur  own  trade,  but  treaty  only  can  regulate  the 
national  trade  between  our  own  and  another  country. 

The  conititution  accordingly  confiders  the  power  of  treaty 
as  different  from  that  of  legiflation.  This  is  proved  in  two 
ways,  J.  That  while  the  conftitution  declares  that  all  the  legifla- 
tive powers  which  it  grants  fhall  be  vefted  in  congrefs,  it  velts 
the  power  of  making  treaties  in  the  prefident  with  confent  of 
the  fenate.  II.  That  the  fame  article  by  which  it  is  declared  that 
the  ex  cent  he  power  ihall  be  vefted  in  a  prefident,  and  in  which 
fundry  executive  powers  are  detailed,  gives  the  power  to  make 
treaties  to  the  prefident,  with  the  auxiliary  agency  of  the  fe- 
nate. Thus  the  power  of  making  treaties  is  placed  in  the  clafs 
of  executive  authorities;  while  the  force" of  laws  is  annexed  to 
its  refults.  This  agrees  with  the  diltribution  commonly  made 
by  theoretical  writers,  though  perhaps  the  power  of  treaty, 
from  its  peculiar  nature,  ought  to  form  a  clafs  by  itfeif. 

When  it  is  faid,  that  congrefs  (hall  have  power  to  regulate 
commerce  with  foreign  nations,  this  has  reference  to  the  di£» 
tribution  of  the  general  legiflative  power  of  regulating  trade 
between  the  national  and  the  particular  governments  ;  and  fcrves 
merely  to  diftinguifh  the  right  of  regulating  our  external  trade, 
as  far  as  it  can  be  done  by  law,  which  is  verted  in  congrefs, 
from  that  of  regulating  the  trade  of  a  (late  within  itfeif,  which 
is  left  to  each  ftate. 

This  will  the  better  appear  from  the  entire  claufe.  *l  The  con- 
grefs fhali  have  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  na- 
tions and  among  the  feveral  ftates  and  with  the  Indian  tribes," 
which  is  the  fame  as  if  it  had  been  faid,  The  whole  powers 
of  regulating  trade  by  law  (hall  refide  in  congrefs,  except  as  to 
the  trade  within  a  ftate,  the  power  to  regulate  which  lhall  re- 
main with  fuch  ftate.  But  it  is  clearly  foreign  to  that  mutual 
regulation  of  trade  between  the  United  States  and  other  nations, 
which,  from  the  neceflity  of  mutual  confent,  can  only  be  per- 


CA MILL  US— No.    XXXVII.  j ££ 

formed  by  treaty.  It  is  indeed  an  abfurdity  to  fay,  that  the 
power  of  regulating  trade  by  law  is  incompatible  with  the  power 
of  regulating  it  by  treaty ;  fince  the  former  can,  by  no  means* 
do  what  the  latter  can  alone  accomplifli ;  confequently,  it  is  an 
abfurdity  to  fay,  that  the  Iegi/?::tive  power  of  regulating  trade  is 
an  exception  to  the  power  of  making  treaties. 

Laws  are  the  acts  of  legislation  of  a  particular  nation  for 
itfelf.  Treaties  are  the  acts  of  the  legiflation  of  fevetal  nations 
for  themfelvei  jointly  and  reciprocally.  The  legiflative  powers 
of  one  (late  cannot  reach  the  cafes  which  depend  on  the  joint 
legiikition  of  two  or  more  (tates.  For  this,  refort  mud  be  had 
to  the  pnElitious  power,  or  the  power  of  treaty — This  is  another 
attitude  of  the  fubjecl,  difplaying  the  fallacy  of  the  proposition, 
that  the  legiflative  powers  of  congrefs,  are  exceptions  to,  or 
limitations  of,  the  power  of  the  prefident,  with  the  aid  of  the 
fenate,  to  make  treaties. 

C  A  M  I  L  L  U  S, 


No.  xxxvii. 


T  frr.ll  now  be  fhown,  that  the  objections  to  the  treaty, 
founded  on  its  pretended  interference  with  the  power  of 
congrefs,  tend  to  render  the  power  of  making  treaties,  in  a 
very  great  degree,  if  not  altogether,  nominal — This  will  be 
belt  fern  by  an  enumeration  of  the  cafes  of  pretended  inter* 
ference. 

n't,  The  power  of  congrefs  to  lay  taxes,  is  faid  to  be  im- 
paired by  thofe  Stipulations  which  prevent  the  laying  of  duties 
on  particular  articles;  which  alfo  prevent  the  laying  of  higher 
or  other  duties  on  Britiih  commodities  than  on  the  commo- 
dities of  other  countries,  and  which  reStri<ft  the  power  of  in- 
creafing  the  difference  of  duties  on  Britiih  tonnage  and  on 
goods  imported  in  Britifh  bottoms. 

2d,  The  power  of  congrefs  to  regulate  trade  is  faid  to  be  im- 
paired by  the  fame  restrictions  refpetfting  duties,  in  as  much  as 
they  are  intended,  and  operate,  as  regulations  of  trade — by  the 
Stipulations  againft  prohibitions  in  certain  cafes;  and,  in  gene- 
ral, bv  all  the  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  restrictions 
in  trade,  which  are  contained  m  the  treaty;  all  which  are  fo 
many  regulations  of  commerce,  which  are  faid  to  encroach 
upon  the  legislative  authority. 

3d,  The  power  of  congrefs  to  eflablilh  an  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  is  faid  to  be  interfered  with,  by  thofe  pr  oufiou 


z6o  C.AM  ILL  us— No.  XXX  Vlf. 

of  the  treaty  which  Secure  to  the  fettlers,  within  the  precincts 
pt"  the  BritiSh  pofts,  the  right  of  becoming  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  and  thole  which,  in  certain  tafesj  remove  thd 
disability  of  alieniSm  as  to  property. 

4th,  The  power  of  congrefs  "  to  define  and  punifh  piracies 
and  felonies,  committed  on  the  high  feas,  and  offences  againft 
the  law  of  nations,"  is  faid  to  be  contravened  by  thole  parts  of 
the  treaty,  which  declare  that  certain  acts  fhall  be  deemed  pi- 
racy, which  constitute  certain  other  things  offences,  and  itipu- 
late  the  reciprocal  pumfhment  of  them  by  each. 

5th,  It  is  alfo  faid  that  the  conftitution  is-violatedj  in  relation 
to  that  provifion  which  declares,  that  "  no  money  fhall  be  drawn 
from  the  treafury  but  in  confequence  of  appropriations  made 
by  law" — by  thole  parts  of  the  treaty  which  ftipuiate  com  pent 
fations  to  certain  commiffioners,  and  indemnifications  to  Great 
Britain,  in  certain  cafes  to  be  adjufted  and  pronounced  by  the 
commiffioners  ;  and  generally,  by  all  thofe  parts  which  may 
involve  an  expenditure  of  money. 

6th,  The  conftitution,  is  faid  to  be  violated  in  that  part  which 
empowers  congrefs  to  difpoie  of,  and  make  all  needful  rules 
and  regulations  refpecting  the  territory*  or  other  property  of  the 
United  States,  by  thofe  provifions  of  the  treaty  which  re- 
fpect  the  adjuftment  of  boundary  in  the  cafes  of  the  rivers  St. 
Croix  and  Miiliffippi. 

Laftly,  The  conftitution  is  faid  to  be  violated,  in  its  provi- 
fions concerning  the  judiciary  department,  by  thofe  parts  of 
the  treaty  which  contemplate  the  confiding  to  the  dercrmina* 
tion  of  commiffioners  certain  queftions  between  the  two  na- 
tions. 

A  careful  infpection  of  the  treaty  with  thefe  objections  in 
view,  will  dilcover,  that  of  the  28  articles  which  compofe  it, 
at  leaft  Seventeen  are  involved  in  the  charge  o[  uncouftiiution- 
alitv  ;  and  that  thefe  feventeen  comprife  all  the  provifions  which 
adjuft  pall  controversies,  or  cStablifh  rules  of  commercial  inter- 
course between  the  parties — The  other  eleven,  which  are  the 
ill,  loch,  17th,  1 3th,  19th,  2Cth,  22d,  23d,  and  24th,  except 
the  lirlt,  are  made  up  of  provifions  which  have  reference 
to  war ;  the  firlt  merely  declaring  that  there  fhall  be  peace 
between  the  parties— And  it  is  a  queltion,  even  with  refjjedt  to 
all  oS  theSe,  except  the  id,  and  10th,  whether  they  alio  are 
not  implicated  in  the  charge-,  in  as  much  as  Some  of  their  dii- 
pofitions  have  commercial  relations.  Is  not  this  alone  Sufficient 
to  bring  under  a  ftrong  fufpicion  the  validity  of  the  principles 
which  impeach  the  conltitutionality  of  the  instrument  ? 


Camili.us  —  No.  XXXYIL  z6i 

It  mufl  have  been  obferved  that  the  argument  in  the  lad 
number  is  applicable  to  all  the  legislative  powers  of  congress, 
as  wellj  as  to  that  of  regulating  trade,  which  was  felected,  by 
way  of  illudration,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  common  to  all 
— Indeed  the  indance  of  the  regulations  of  track  is  that  which 
is  mod  favorable  to  the  oppofite  doctrine — Since  foreign  na- 
tions are  named  in  theclaufe;  the  true  intent  of  which,  how- 
ever, has  been  explained. 

The  fame  reafoning,  too,  would  extend  the  power  of  treaties 
to  thofe  objects  which  are  configned  to  the  legiflation  of  indi- 
vidual dates  j  but  here  the  conditution  has  announced  its  mean- 
ing in  exprefs  terms,  by  declaring,  that  the  treaties  which  have 
been  and  (hall  be  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  (hall  be  the  fupreme  law  of  the  land,  any  thing  in  the 
conditution  or  Jaws  of  any  date  to  the  contrary  notwithdand- 
ing — This  manifedly  recognizes  the  fupremacy  of  the  power 
of  treaties  over  the  laws  of  particular  dates,  and  goes  even  a 
ftep  farther. 

The  obvious  reafon  for  this  fpecial  provifion,  in  regard  to 
ihe  laws  of  individual  dates,  is,  that  there  might  otherwife 
have  been  room  for  quedion — whether  a  treaty  of  the  union 
could  embrace  objects,  the  internal  regulation  of  which  be- 
longed to  the  feparate  authorities  of  the  dates.  But  with  regard 
to  the  United  States  there  was  no  room  for  a  fimilar  quedion. 

The  power  of  treaty  could  not  but  be  fuppofed  commenfuratc 
with  all  thefe  objects  to  which  the  legislative  power  of  the  uni- 
on extended,  which  are  the  proper  fubjedls  of  compacts  with 
foreign  nations. 

It  is  a  quedion  amomg  fome  theoretical  writers — whether  1 
treaty  can  repeal  pre-cxijl'mg  lows?  This  quedion  mud  always 
be  anfwered  by  the  particular  form  of  government  of  each  na- 
tion. In  our  conditution,  which  gives,  ipfo  faclo^  the  force  of 
law,  to  treaties,  making  them  equal  with  the  acts  of  congrefs, 
the  fupreme  law  of  the  land,  a  treaty  mult  necelTarily  repeal  an 
antecedent  law  contrary  to  it;  according  to  the  legal  maxim 
that  "  leges  pofleriores  priores  ctntrarias  abrogant." 

But  even  in  thofe  forms  of  government,  in  which  there  may 
be  room  for  fuch  a  quedion,  it  is  not  underdood  that  a  treaty 
containing  dipulations  which  require  the  repeal  of  antecedent 
laws,  is,  on  that  account,  unconstitutional  and  null.  The  true 
meaning  is,  that  the  antecedent  laws  are  not,  ipfo  fuffo,  abro- 
gated by  the  treaty — But  the  legislature  is,  nevertheless,  bound 
in  good  faith,  under  the  general  limitation,  dated  in  another 
place,  to  lend  its  authority  to  remove  obllacles  whicli  previous 
laws  might  onpofe  to  a  fair  execution  of  a  treaty. 


262  Camillus— No.  XXXVII. 

One  inftance  of  the  inconfiftency,  prevailing  in  the  argu- 
ments againft  the  treaty,  negochted  by  Mr.  Jay,  is  obiervable 
in  this  point.  To  get  rid  of  the  infractions  of  our  treaty  of 
peace  with  Great  Britain  by  certain  laws  of  particular  dates, 
it  is  flrenuoufly  maintained  that  treaties  controul  the  laws  of 
ftates.  To  impeach  the  conftitutionality  of  the  treaty  under 
confideration,  it  is  objected,  that,  in  fome  points,  it  interferes 
with  the  objects  of  (late  legiflation.  The  exprefs  provifion  of 
the  conftitution  in  this  particular,  quoted  above,  has  not  been 
fufficient  to  check  the  rage  for  objection. 

The  abfurdity  of  the  alleged  interferences  will  fully  appear, 
by  mowing  how  they  would  operate  upon  the  feveral  kinds  of 
treaties  ufual  among  nations.  Thefe  may  be  claffed  under  three 
principal  heads,  i.  Treaties  of  commerce,  2.  Treaties  of  alli- 
ance, 3.  Treaties  of  peace. 

Treaties  of  commerce  are,  of  courfe,  excluded  ;  for  every 
treaty  of  commerce  is  a  fyftem  of  rules  devifed  to  regulate  and 
govern  the  trade  between  contracting  nations  ;  invading  directly 
the  exclufive  power  of  regulating  trade  which  is  attributed  to 
congrefs. 

Treaties  of  alliance,  whether  defenfive  or  offenfive,  are  eqully 
excluded,  and  this  on  two  grounds- — I.  Becaufe  it  is  their  im- 
mediate object  to  decline  a  cafe  or  cafes  in  which  one  nation 
(hall  take  part  with  another  in  war,  contrary,  in  the  fenfe  of 
the  objection,  to  that  claufe  of  the  conftitution  which  gives  to 
congrefs  the  power  of  declaring  war;  and  2.  Becaufe  the  fuc- 
cours  ftipulated,  in  whatever  fhape  they  may  be,  muft  involve 
an  expenditure  of  money — not  to  fay,  that  it  is  common  to  fti- 
pulate  fuccours  in  money,  either  in  the  firit  inftance  or  by  way 
of  alternative.  It  will  be  pertinent  to  obferve  incidentally,  in  this 
place,  that  even  ihe  humane  and  laudable  provifion  in  the 
ieventecntli  article,  which  all  have  approved,  is  within  the  fpi- 
rit  of  the  objection ;  for  the  effect  of  this  is  to  reftrain  the 
power  and  diferetion  of  congrefs  to  grant  reprifals,  till  there 
has  been  an  unfuccefsful  demand  of  juftice.  Nothing  can  bet-* 
ter  illuftrate  the  unreafonable  tendency  of  the  principle. 

Treaties  of  peace  are  alfo  excluded,  or,  at  the  leaft,  are  fo 
narrowed  ns  to  be  in  the  greatelt  number  of  cafes  impracticable 
— The  moll  common  conditions  of  thefe  treaties  are  restitutions 
or  ceffions  of  territory,  on  one  lideor  on  the  other,  frequently 
on  both  fides,  regulations  of  boundary — reftitutions  and  con- 
firmations of  property — pecuniary  indemnifications  for  inju- 
ries or  expenfes — It  will,  probablv,  not  be  eafy  to  find  a  pre- 
cedent of  a  treaty  oH  peace,  which  does  not  contain  one  or 
more  of  thefe  provifions,  as  the  bufis  of  the  ceiiiiuon  of  hofti- 


Camillus— No.  XXXVIL  263 

Uties,  and  they  are  all  them  naturally  to  be  looked  for  in  an 
agreement  which  is  to  put  an  end  to  the  ilate  of  war  between 
conflicting  nations. 

Yet  they  are  all  precluded  by  the  objections  which  have  been 
enumerated  :  pecuniary  indemnifications,  by  that  which  refpects 
the  appropriations  of  money ;  reftitutions  or  cefhons  of  terri- 
tory or  property,  regulations  of  boundary,  by  that  which  re- 
fpects  the  right  of  congrefs  to  difpofe  of,  and  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  concerning  the  territory  and  property  of 
the  United  States — It  is  to  be  obferved,  likewife,  that  cefhons 
of  territory  are  almoft  always  accompanied  with  fiipulations  in 
favor  of  thofe,  who  inhabit  the  ceded  territory,  fecuring  per- 
fonal  privileges  and  private  rights  of  property ;  neither  of 
which  could  be  acceded  to  on  the  principles  of  that  objection, 
which  relates  to  the  power  of  naturalization ;  for  this  power 
has  reference  to  two  fpecies  of  rights,  thofe  of  privilege  and 
thofe  of  property.  An  act  allowing  a  foreigner  to  hold  real 
ellate  is  fo  far  an  act  of  naturalization;  fince  it  is  one  of  the 
confequences  of  alienifm,  not  to  be  able  to  hold  real  ellate. 

It  follows,  that  if  the  objections  which  are  taken  to  the  treaty, 
on  the  point  of  conllitutionality,  are  valid,  the  prefident,  with 
the  advice  and  confent  of  the  fenate,  can  make  neither  a  treaty 
of  commerce  nor  alliance,  and  rarely,  if  at  all,  a  treaty  of 
peace.  It  is  probable,  that  on  a  minute  analyfis,  there  is  fcarcely 
any  fpecies  of  treaty  which  would  not  chlh,  in  fome  particu* 
lar,  with  the  principle  of  thofe  objections ;  and  thus,  as  was 
before  obferved,  the  power  to  make  treaties,  granted  in  fuch 
comprehenfive  and  indefinite  terms,  and  guarded  with  fo  much 
precaution,  would  become  eflentially  nugatory. 

This  is  fo  obvioufly  againlt  the  principles  of  found  conftruc- 
tion,  it,  at  the  fame  time,  expofes  the  government  to  fo  much 
impotence  in  one  great  branch  of  political  power,  in  oppofition 
to  a  main  intent  of  the  conftitution — and  it  tends  fo  directly 
to  fruftrate  one.  principal  object  of  the  fituation  of  a  general 
government,  the  convenient  management  of  our  external  con- 
cerns, that  it  cannot  but  be  rejected  by  every  difcerning  man 
who  will  examine  and  pronounce  with  fmcerity.  It  is  againlt 
the  principles  of  found  conftruction  j  becaufe  thefe  teach  us, 
that  every  instrument  is  (o  to  be  interpreted,  as  that  all  the 
parts  may,  if  poflible,  confift  with  each  other,  and  have  theiv 
effect.  But  the  conllruction  which  is  combated  would  caufe 
the  legiflative  power  to  deftroy  the  power  of  making  treaties. 
Moreover,  if  the  power  of  the  executive  department  be  inade^ 
quate  to  the  making  of  the  feveral  kinds  of  treaties,  which 
have  been  mentioned,  there  is,  then,  no  power  in  the  gov 


2d4  Cam  ill  us — No.  XXXVII. 

ment  to  make  them  ;  for  there  is  not  a  fyllable  in  theconftitu-* 
tion  which  authorizes  either  the  legislative  or  judiciary  depart- 
ments, to  make  a  treaty  with  a  foreign  nation.  And  our  con- 
stitution would  then  exhibit  the  ridiculous  fpectacle  of  a 
government  without  a  power  to  make  treaties  with  foreign  na- 
tions :  a  refult  as  inadmiSTable  as  it  is  abfurd  ;  fince,  in  fact, 
our  constitution  grants  the  power  of  making  treaties,  in  the 
molt  explicit  and  ample  terms,  to  the  preSident,  with  the  ad- 
vice and  confent  of  the  fenate.  On  the  contrary,  all  diiliculty 
is  avoided,  by  distinguishing  the  province  of  the  two  powers, 
according  to  ideas  which  have  been  always  familiar  to  us,  and 
which  were  never  expofed  to  any  queftion  till  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain  gave  exercife  to  the  fubtilties  of  party 
fpirir.  ^ 

By  confining  the  power  to  make  laws  within  its  proper 
fphere,  and  reftricting  its  actions  to  the  establishment  of  rules 
for  our  own  nation  and  thofe  foreigners  who  come  within  our 
jurifdiclion — and  by  ailigning  to  the  power  of  treaty  the  office 
of  concerting  thofe  rules  of  mutual  intercourfe  and  connexion, 
between  us  and  foreign  nations,  which  require  their  confent. 
as  well  as  our  own  ;  allowing  to  it  the  latitude  neceffary  for 
this  purpofe,  a  harmonious  agreement  ispreferved  between  the 
different  powers  of  the  government:  that  to  make  laws,  and 
that  to  make  treaties ;  between  the  authority  of  the  legislative 
and  the  authority  of  the  executive  department — Hence, 

Though  congrefs,  by  the  constitution,  have  power  to  lay 
taxes,  yet  a  treaty  may  reftrain  the  exercife  of  it  in  particular 
cafes.  For  a  nation,  like  an  individual,  may  abridge  its  moral 
power  of  action  by  agreement  j  and  the  organ  charged  with 
the  legislative  power  of  a  nation  may  be  restrained  in  its  ope- 
ration by  the  agreements  of  the  organ  of  its  federative  power, 
or  power  to  contract :  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  nation  is 
the  ccnjlituent)  and  that  the  executive,  within  its  fphere,  is  no 
lefs  the  organ  of  its  will  than  the  legislature. 

Though  cpngrefs  are  empowered  to  make  regulations  of  trade, 
yet  they  are  not  exclufively  fo  empowered— But  regulations  of 
trade  may  alfo  be  made  by  treaty  •,  and,  where  other  rations  are 
to  be  bouud  by  them,  muit  be  made  by  treaty. 

Though  congrefs  are  authorized  to  eltablifh  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  yet  this  contemplates  only  the  ordinary  cafes  of 
internal  administration,  in  particular  and  extraordinary  cafes, 
thofe  in  which  the  pretenfions  of  a  foreign  government  are  to 
be  managed — a  treaty  may  alfo  confer  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  citizens  j  thus  the  abfolute  cellion  and  plenary  dominion  of 
a  province  or  diftritt,  poffdTed  by  our  arms  in  war,  may  be 


Camillds— No.  XXXVII.  265 

accepted  by  the  treaty  of  peace,  on  the  condition,  that  its  inha- 
bitants (hall,  in  their  perfons  and  property  enjoy  the  privileges 
of  citizens. 

The  fame  reafoning  applies  to  all  the  other  infiances  of  fup- 
pofed  infraction  of  the  legiflative  authority  : — with  regard  to 
piracies  and  offences  again  ft  the  laws  of  nations  ;  with  regard 
to  expenditures  of  money,  with  regard  to  the  appointment  of 
officers,  with  regard  to  the  judiciary  tribunals,  with  regard  to 
the  difpofal  and  regulation  of  the  national  territory  and  property 
« — In  all  thefe  cafe.;,  the  power  to  make  laws  and  the  power  to 
make  treaties  are  concurrent  and  co-ordinate — The  latter,  and 
not  the  former,  mult  act,  where  the  co-operation  of  other  na- 
tions is  requifite. 

As  to  what  refpects  the  commifTioners  agreed  to  be  appointed, 
they  are  not,  in  a  ftrict  {en{e3  officers.  They  are  arbitrators 
between  the  two  countries.  Though  in  the  conftitutions,  both 
of  the  United  States  and  of  moft  of  the  individual  dates,  a 
particular  mode  of  appointing  officers  is  defignated — Yet,  in 
practice,  it  has  not  been  deemed  a  violation  of  the  provifion 
to  appoint  commifTioners  or  fpecial  agents  for  fpecial  purpofes, 
in  a  different  mode. 

As  to  the  provifion,  which  reftricts  the  iffuing  of  money 
from  the  treafury,  to  cafes  of  appropriation  by  law,  and  which, 
from  its  intrinfic  nature,  may  be  confidered  as  applicable  to  the 
exercife  of  every  power  of  government,  it  is,  in  no  fort,  touched 
by  the  treaty.  In  the  conftant  practice  of  the  government,  the 
caufe  of  an  expenditure,  or  the  contract  which  incurs  it,  is  a 
different  thing  from  the  appropriation  for  fatisfying  it.  Thus 
the  falary  of  a  public  officer  is  fixed  by  one  law,  the  appropri- 
ation for  its  payment  by  another.  So,  the  treaty  only  ftipulates 
what  may  be  a  caufe  of  expenditure.  An  appropriation  by  law 
will  ftill  be  requifite  for  actual  payment. 

As  to  the  difpofal  and  regulation  of  the  territory  and  pro- 
perty of  the  United  States,  this  will  be  naturally  underftood 
of  difpofitions  and  regulations  purely  domeftic,  and  where  the 
title  is  not  difputed  by  a  foreign  power.  Where  there  are  inter- 
fering claims  of  foreign  powers,  as  neither  will  acknowledge 
the  right  of  the  other  to  decide,  treaty  muft  directly  or  indi- 
rectly adjuft  the  difpute. 

So  far  then  it  is  from  being  true,  that  the  power  of  treaty 
can  extend  to  nothing  upon  which,  in  relation  to  ourfelves,  the 
legiflative  power  may  act— that  it  may  rather  be  hid  down  as 
a  general  rule,  that  a  treaty  may  do  between  different  nations 
whatever  the  legiflative  power  of  each  may  do  with  regard  to 
jtfelf.  The  exception?  to  this  rule  are  to  be  deduced  from  the 


266  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXVIII. 

unfitnefs  and  inconvenience  of  its  application  to  particular  cafes, 
and  arc  of  the  nature  of  abufes  of  a  general  principle. 

In  confidering  the  power  of  legiflation  in  its  relations  to  the 
power  of  treaty,  inftead  of  faying,  that  the  objects  of  the 
former  are  excepted  out  of  the  latter,  it  will  be  more  corre<fr, 
indeed  it  will  be  entirely  correct,  to  invert  the  rule,  and  to  fay, 
that  the  power  of  treaty  is  the  power  of  making  exceptions, 
in  particular  cafes,  to  the  power  of  legiflation.  The  ftipulations 
of  treaty  are,  in  good  faith,  reftraints  upon  the  exercife  of  the 
laft  mentioned  power.  "Where  there  is  no  treaty,  it  is  completely 
free  to  act.  Where  there  is  a  treaty  ;  it  is  (till  free  to  act  in  all 
the  cafes  not  fpecially  excepted  by  the  treaty.  Thus,  congrefs  is 
free  to  regulate  trade  with  a  foreign  nation,  with  whom  we 
have  no  treaty  of  commerce,  in  fuch  manner  as  they  judge  for 
the  intereft  of  the  United  States ;  and  they  are  alio  free  fo  to 
regulate  it  with  a  foreign  nation  with  whom  we  have  a  treaty, 
in  all  the  points  which  the  treaty  does  not  fpecially  except. 
There  is  always,  therefore,  great  latitude  for  the  exercife  of 
the  legiflative  power  of  regulating  trade  with  foreign  nations, 
notwithftanding  any  treaties  of  commerce  which  may  be- 
formed. 

The  effects  of  a  treaty  to  impofe  reftraints  upon  the  legifla- 
tive power,  may,  in  fome  degree,  be  exemplified  by  the  cafe 
of  the  compacts  which  the  legiflature  itfclf  makes,  as  with 
regard  to  the  public  debt.  Its  own  compacts  are,  in  good  faith, 
exceptions  to  its  power  of  action.  Treaties  with  foreign  powers, 
for  obvious  reafons,  are  much  llronger  exceptions. 

CAMILLUS. 


No.    XXXVIII.— AND   LAST. 

THE  manner  in  which  the  power  of  treaty,  as  it  exifts  in 
the  conftitution,  was  underftood  by  the  convention  in 
framing  it,  and  by  the  people  in  adopting  it,  is  the  point  next 
to  be  confidered. 

As  to  the  fenfe  of  the  convention,  the  fecrecy  with  which 
their  deliberations  were  conducted,  does  not  permit  any  formal 
proof  of  the  opinions  and  views  which  prevailed  in  digefling 
the  power  of  treaty — But  from  the  bejl  opportunity  of  knowing 
the  fact,  I  aver,  that  it  was  underflood  by  all,  to  be  the  intent 
of  the  provifion  to  give  to  that  power  the  mod  ample  latitude 
i — to  render  it  competent  to  all  the   ilipulations,  which  the 


Camillijs— No.  XXXVIII.  267 

exigencies  of  national  affairs  might  require ;  competent  to  the- 
making  of  treaties  of  alliance,  treaties  of  commerce,  treaties 
of  peace,  and  every  other  fpecies  of  convention  ufual  among 
nations  ;  and  competent,  in  the  courfe  of  its  exercife  for  thefe 
purpofes,  to  controul  and  bind  the  legiflative  power  of  congrefs 
— And  it  was  emphatically  for  this  reafon,  that  it  was  fo  care- 
fully guarded  ;  the  co-operation  of  two-thirds  of  the  fenate, 
with  the  prefulent,  being  required  to  make  any  treaty  what- 
ever— I  appeal  for  this,  with  confidence,  to  every  member  of 

the  convention particularly  to   thofe  in  the   two   houfes  of 

congrefs.  Two  of  thefe  are  in  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives, 
Mr.  Madifon  and  Mr.  Baldwin:  It  is  expecled,  by  the  adver- 
saries of  the  treaty,  that  thefe  gentlemen  will,  in  their  places, 
obftruCt  its  execution — However  this  may  be,  I  feel  a  confi- 
dence that  neither  of  them  will  deny  the  affertion  I  have 
made — to  fuppofe  them  capable  of  fuch  a  denial  were  to  fuppofe 
them  utterly  regardlefs  of  truth.  But,  though  direct  proof  of 
the  views  of  the  convention  on  the  point,  cannot  be  produced  j 
— yet  we  are  not  wholly  without  proof  on  this  head. 

Three  members  of  the  convention  difTented  from  the  confti- 
tutionj  Mr.  Mafon,  Mr.  Gerry,  and  Mr.  Randolph.  Among 
the  reafons  for  his  diffent,  pubiifhed  by  Mr.  Mafon,  we  find 
this  claufe,  "  By  declaring  all  treaties  fupreme  laws  of  the 
land,  the  executive  and  fenate  have,  in  many  cafes,  an  exclave 
fainer  of  legijlation,  which  might  have  been  avoided  by  proper 
diltmtlions  with  refpecl  to  treaties,  and  requiring  the  affent  of 
the  houfe  of  reprefentatives  where  it  could  be  done  with  fafety." 
— This  fhows  the  great  extent  of  the  power,  in  the  conception 
of  Mr.  Maion:  in  many  cafes  amounting  to  an  exclufive  power 
of  legiflation ;  nor  did  he  objeel  to  the  extent,  but  only  defired 
that  it  mould  have  been  further  guarded,  by  certain  diftincli- 
ons,  and  by  requiring,  in  certain  cafes,  the  affent  of  the  houfe 
of  reprefentatives. 

Among  the  objections,  to  the  conftitution,  addreffed  by  Mr. 
Gerry  to  the  legislature  of  Mailachufetts,  we  find  one  to  have 
been,  "  that  treaties  of  the  (ngkejl  importance  might  be  formed  by 
the  prefident,  with  the  advice  of  two-thirds  of  a  quorum  of  the 
fenate." — This  (hows  his  idea  of  the  magnitude  of  the  power ; 
and  impliedly  admitting  with  Mr.  Mafon,  the  propriety  of  its  ex- 
tent, he  feems  only  to  have  defired  that  the  concurrence  of  the 
fenate  fhcuid  have  embraced  two-thirds  of  the  whole  body,  inftead 
of  two-thirds  of  a  quorum.  But  how  fmall  and  how  infignificaut 
would  the  power  of  treaty  be,  according  to  the  dottrine  iatdy 
promulgated,  with  regard  to  its  cor.ftitutional  limit  ? 


268  Camillus-No.  XXXVIII. 

As  to  the  fenfc  of  the  community  in  the  adoption  of  the  cofl- 
flitution,  this  can  only  be  afcertained  from  two  fourc.es,  the 
writings  for  and  agninft  it,  and  the  debates  in  the  feveral  ftate 
conventions — while  it  was  under  confideration. 

I  poffefs  not,  at  this  moment,  materials  for  an  inveftigation, 
which  would  enable  me  to  prefent  the  evidence  they  afford — But 
I  refer  to  them,  with  confidence,  for  proof  of  the  fact,  that 
the  organization  of  the  power  of  treaty,  in  the  cenftitution, 
was  attacked  and  defended  with  an  admiificn  on  both  fides,  of 
its  being  of  the  character  which  I  have  affigned  to  it — Its  great 
extent  and  importance — its  effedl  to  controul,  by  its  ftipul?.- 
tions,  the  legislative  authority,  were  mutually  taken  for  granted, 
and,  upon  this  bafis,  it  was  infilled,  by  way  of  objection — 
that  there  were  not  adequate  guards  for  the  fafe  exercife  of  fo 
vaft  a  power  ;  that  there  ought  to  have  been  refervations  of  cer- 
tain rights,  a  better  difpofition  of  the  power  to  impeach,  and  a 
participation,  general  or  fpecial,  of  the  houfe  of  reprefenta- 
tives  in  the  making  of  treaties. 

The  reply  to  thefe  objections,  acknowledging    the   delicacy 
and  magnitude  of  the  power,  was  directed  to  (how  that   its  • 
organization  was  a  proper  one,    and  that  it  was  fufnciently 
cuarded.* 


*  The  Federalifl  No.  XL1I.  has  thefe  paffages,  a  the  power  to  make  treaties 
and  to  receive  and  lend  ambaffadors,  fpeak  their  own  propriety — Both  of  them 
are  comprifed  in  the  articles  of  confederation,  -with  tbe  difference  cu.'y  that  the 
former  is  ri'ifem'oarraJf.-d  by  the  plan  of  the  convention,  of  an  exception  by  which 
treaties  might  be  lubltantially  frustrated  by  regulations  of  the  flates."  This 
plainly  alludes  to  the  frov  if  which  lias  been  cited  and  commented  upon.  "  It  i£ 
true  that  when  treaties  of  commerce  Stipulate  for  the  appointment  of  articles* 
the  admifiion  of  foreign  confuls  may  fall  within  the  power  of  making  commer- 
cial treaties."  And  in  number  LX1V.  are  thefe  pafTages,  "  the  power  of  making 
treaties  is  an  important  one,  efpccially  as  it  relates  to  ivar^  peace  and  cothmerce ; 
and  it  mould  not  be  delegated  but  in  fuch  a  mode  and  with  fuch  precautions  as 
will  afford  the  b'gbefi  ftcurlty^  that  it  will  be  exercifed  by  men  the  befl  qualified 
for  the  purpofe,  and  in  the  manner  moll  conducive  to  the  public  good."  There 
are  few  who  will  not  admit,  that  the  affairs  of  trade  and  navigation  flionld  he  regu- 
lated by  a  fyflem  cautioufly  formed  and  fteadily  purfued,  and  that  both  our 
treaties  and  our  laws  mould  correfpond  with,  and  be  made  to  promote  it." 
"  Some  are  difpleafed  with  it  (that  is,  the  power  of  treaty)  not  on  account  of  any 
errors  or  defects  in  it,  but  becaufe,  as  the  treaties,  when  made  are  to  have  the 
force  of  law?,  they  fliouH  be  made  only  by  men  invefled  with  legiflative  autho- 
rity ;"  "  others,  though  content  that  treaties  mould  be  made  in  the  mode  pro- 
posed, are  avcrfe  to  their  being  the  fupremc  laiu  of  the  land." 

It  is  generally  uiulerflood  that  two  perfons  were  concerned  in  the  writings  of 
thefe  papers,  who,  from  having  been  members  of  the  convention,  had  a  good 
opportunity  of  knowing  its  views — and  were  under  no  temptation  at  that  time, 
in  tl. is  particular,  to  mifreprefent  them. 

In  the  addrefs  and  rtai'ons  of  diflent  of  the  minority  of  the  convention  of 
Pennsylvania  to  their  constituents,  "  they  ftate,  that  they  had  lu^'gefted  the 
following  propofition,  among  other*,  fur  an  ane.«di/icnt  to  thfc  coaflitution,  "  Thar 


C'  mi  Li.  us-No.  XXXVITl.  itp 

The  rhanner  of  e?;ercifing.  a  fimilar  power  under  ihzeptifede* 
ration  fhall  now  be  examined. 

To  judge  of  the  fimihuity  of  the  power,  it  will  be  ufeful  td 
quote  the  terms  in  which  it  was  granted.  They  are  tl, 
"  The  United  .States  in  congrefs  aflembled,  (hall  have  the  fole 
and  exclufive  right  and  power  of  entering  into  treaties  and  alli- 
ances, provided  that  no  treaty  iff  commerce  thai]  be  made,  whereby* 
the  legiflative  power  of  the  refpeclive  Hates  (hall  be  reftrained 
from  impofing  fuch  impofis  and  duties  on  foreigners  as  their 
own  people  are  fubjecl  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the  importation 
or  exportation  of  any  fpecies  of  commodities  whatfoever."  (Ar- 
ticle IX.) 

It  will  not  be  difputed  that  the  Words  "  treaties  and  alli- 
ances" are  of  equivalent  import,  and  of  no  greater  force  than 
the  fingle  word  "  treaties."  An  alliance  is  only  a  fpecies  of 
treaty,  a  particular  of  a  general  ; — and  the  power  of  "  entering 
into  treaties,"  which  terms  confer  the  authority  under  \\\. 
the  former  government  acted,  will  not  be  pretended  to  be 
ftronger  than  the  power  "  to  make  treaties,"  which  are  the 
terms  conftituting  the  authority  under  which  the  prcfent  govern- 
ment acts ;  it  follows,  that  the  power,  refpetting  treaties,  un- 
der the  former,  and  that  under  the  prefent  government,  are 
fimilar. 

But  though  fimilar,  that  under  the  pvefent  government  is 
more  comprehenfive  ;  for  it  is  diverted  of  the  redaction  in  the 
provifion  cited  above,  and  is  fortified  by  theexprefs  declaration, 
that  its  acls  fhall  be  valid  notwithstanding  the  conititution  or 

Vol.  III.  P  p 

no  treaty  which  fnall  be  dire&ly  bppofed  to  the  exifting  laws  of  the  Ui 
States  in  congrefs  afTembkd,  fhall  be  valid  until  i'uch  laws  ihnll  be  repealed  or 
ktiade  conformable  to  fuch  treaty."  This  fhov.s  that  it  was  nnderftood  that  the 
power  Of  treaty  in  the  conftitution  extended  to  abrogating  even  pre-exiftirig  laws 
of  the  United  States,  which  was  thought  exceptionable;  while  no  objection  was 
made  to  the  idea  of  its  controlling  future  exercifes  of  the  legiflative  power — 
The  fame  addrefs  dates,  in  another  place,  that  the  prefident  and  fencite  "  may 
form  treaties  with  foreign  nation.1,  that  may  controul  and  abrogate  the  conftitu- 
tion  and  laws  of  the  feveral  ftates." 

In  the  2'1  volume  of  the  debates  of  the  convention  of  Virginia,  which  is  tile 
only  part   i  polTels — there  are  many   paffages  that  (how  the  gre.u  extent  of  the 
power  of  treaty  ifi  the  opinion  of  the  fpeakerson  both  fides — As  quotation  would 
,  f  will  content  myfelf  with  referring  to  the  papers  where  they  will  be 
found  (viz)  91,  99,  131,  137,  14/;,   147,    150,    t$->.    It  will,  in   particular, 
appear,  tbbt  while  the  oppofers  of  the  conititution  denied  the  powcf  oi 
bf  rep reft  ntatives  to  break  in  upon,  or  controul  the  power  oi  treaties,  ; 
of  the  conititution  did  not  affirm  the  contrary;  but  merely  contended,  tfi  it 
honfe  of  representatives  might    I   .  I  '• 
ties. 


2~o  Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXVIII. 

laws  of  any  ftate. — This  is  evidence,  (as  was  the  fuel)  of  a 
difpofiti<.n  in  the  convention  to  difembarrafs  and  reinforce  the 
power  of  treaty.  It  ought  not  to  pafs  unnoticed,  that  an  im- 
portant argument  remits  from  the  provifo,  which  accompanies 
the  power  granted  by  the  confederation,  as  to  the  natural  ex- 
tent of  this  power.  The  declaration  that  no  treaty  of  commerce 
ftiall  be  made  retraining  the  legiflative  power  of  a  ftate  from 
impoilng  fuch  duties  and  imports  on  foreigners  as  their  own 
people  are  fubjecr.  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the  importation  or 
exportation  of  any  fpecies  of  commodities  whatfoever  is  an 
admiflion,  i.  That  the  general  power  of  entering  into  treaties, 
included  that  of  making  treaties  of  commerce,  and  2.  That 
■without  the  limitation  in  the  provifo,  a  treaty  of  commerce 
might  have  been  made  which  would  reftrain  the  legiflative  au- 
thority of  the  Mate  in  the  points  interdicted  by  that  provifo. 

Let  it  not  be  faid,  that  the  provifo,  by  implication,  granted 
the  power  to  make  treaties  of  commerce,  under  which  con- 
grefs  afterwards  acled  ;  for  befides  that  this  is  inconfiftent  with 
the  more  obvious  meaning  of  the  claufe,  the  firft  article  of  the 
confederation  leaves  to  the  (tares  individually  every  power  not 
exprefsly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  congrels  aliembled. 
The  power  of  congrefs,  therefore,  to  make  a  treaty  of  com- 
merce and  every  other  treaty  they  did  make — muft  be  vindicated 
on  the  ground  that  the  exprefs  grant  of  power  to  enter  into 
treaties  and  alliances  is  a  general,  which  neceffiirily  included 
as  particulars  the  various  treaties  they  have  made,  and  the  vari- 
ous ftipulations  of  thofc  treaties. 

Under  this  power,  thus  granted  and  defined,  the  alliance 
with  France  was  contracted  :  guaranteeing,  in  the  cafe  of  a 
defenfive  war,  her  Weft  India  pofTefTions,  and  when  the  cafus 
foederis  occurs,  obliging  the  United  States  to  make  war  for  the 
defence  of  thofe  pofieffions,  and  confequently,  to  incur  the  ex- 
penfes  of  war. 

Under  the  fame  power*  treaties  of  commerce  were  made 
with  France,  the  Netherlands,  Sweden,  and  Pruflia — Befides 
that  every  treaty  of  commerce  is  necefTarily  a  regulation  of  com- 
merce between  the  parties,  it  has  been  fliown  in  the  antecedent 
eomparifon  of  thofc  treaties,*  with  that  lately  negociated,  that 
th  y  pro  luce  the  fpecific  effects  of  reftraiuing  the  legiflative 
power  from  irnpofing  higher  or  other  duties  on  the  articles  of 
thofe   natJoris   than  on   the   like  articles  of  other  nations,  and 

s  :•!.  3d,  and  4th  of  treaty  with  France,  ad,  3d,  and  20th  of  treaty 
v.'ith  Ruffia,   .  ',  .  3d  and  4th  of  treaty  with 

Sweden. 


Camillus— No.  XXXVIIL  271 

from  extending  prohibitions  to  them  which  fliall  not  equally 
extend  to  other  nations  the  mod  favored;  and  thus  abridge  the 
exercife  of  the  legiflative  power  to  tax,  and  the  exercife  of  the 
legislative  power  to  regulate  trade. 

Thefe  treaties  likewife  define  and  eftablifh  the  fame  cafe  of 
piracy,  which  is  defined  in  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain.  More- 
over, the  treaty  with  France,  as  has  been  elfewhere  fhown,  with 
regard  to  the  rights  of  property   naturalizes  the  whole  French  f 
nation. 

The  confular  convention  with  France,  negeciated,  likewife, 
under  the  fame  power,  grants  to  the  confuls  of  that  country, 
various  authorities  and  jurisdictions,  fome  of  a  judicial  nature, 
which  are  actual  transfers  to  them  of  portions  of  the  internal 
jurifdi&ion  and  ordinary  judiciary  power  of  the  country  ;  the 
exercife  of  which  our  government  is  bound  to  aid  with  its  whole 
ftrength.  It  alfo  grants  exemptions  to  French  confuls  from 
certain  kinds  of  taxes,  and  to  them,  and  French  citizens,  from 
all  perfonal  fervice;  all  which  are  extremely  delicate  interfer- 
ences with  our  internal  policy  and  ordinary  jurifdiction. 

Under  the  fame  power,  the  treaty  with  Morocco  was  formed, 
which,  befides  various  other  regulations  relative  to  war,  and 
feveral  relative  to  trade,  contains  the  rule,  that  neither  party 
fhall  make  war  without  a  previous  demand  of  reparation  ;  in 
reftraint  of  the  general  difcretionary  power  of  congrefs  to  de- 
clare war. 

Under  the  fame  power,  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Bri- 
tain was  made — This  treaty  contains  the  eftablifhment  of  a 
boundary  line  between  the  parties,  which,  in  part,  is  arbitrary, 
and  could  not  have  been  predicated  upon  precife  antecedent 
right.  It  alfo  prohibits  the  future  confiscation  of  the  property 
of  adherents  to  Great  Britain  :  declares  that  no  perfon  ihall, 
on  account  of  the  part  he  took  in  the  war,  fuffer  any  future 
lofs  or  damage  in  his  perfon,  liberty,  or  property,  and  provides 
for  the  releafe  of  fuch  perfons  from  confinement,  and  the  dis- 
continuance of  profecutions  againft  them. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  a  higher  act  of  controul,  both  of 
the  legiflative  and  judiciary  authority,  than  by  tins  article. 
Thefe  provifions  are  analagous  in  principle,  to  thofe  flipulations 
which,  in  the  fecond  and  ninth  articles  of  the  treaty  under  ex- 
amination, have  given  occafion  to  conftitutional  objection. 

Under  the  tunc  power,  various  treaties  with  Indians,  inha- 
biting the  territory  of  the  United  States,  have  been  made;  efta- 
blifhing  arbitrary  lines  of  boundary  with  them:  which  determine 
the  right  of  foil  on  the  one  fide  and  on  the  other.  Some  of 
thefe  treaties   proceed  on   the   principle  of  the   United  Stla^ct 


%11  Camillus— No.  XXXVIII. 

having  conquered  the  Indian  country,  and  profefs  to  n 
tuirous  conctihVns  to  them  of  the  hinds  which  are  left  to  their 
occupation.  There  is  alfo  a  feature  of  iir.portai.ee  common  to 
tbefe  treaties,  which  is  the  withdrawing  of  the  protection  of 
the  United  States  from  thofe  of  their  citizens,  who  intrude  on 
Indian  laws.  Laving  them  to  be  punifhed  at  the  pkafure  of  the 
Indians. 

Hence  it  appear?,  that,  except  as  to  the  ftipulations  for  ap- 
pointing commiffioners,  the  treaties  made  under  the  confede- 
ration, contain  al!  the  features,  identically  or  by  analogy, 
which  create  coniiitutionid  objections  to  the  treaty  before  us: 
They  rellrain,  in  certain  inftaaces,  the  legiflative  power  to  lay 
taxes  j  they  make  numerous  and  important  regulations  of  trade  ; 
they  confer  the  benefit  of  naturalization  as  to  property  ;  they 
define  cafes  of  piracy  \  they  create  caufes  of  expenditure ;  they 
dire  t  and  modify  the  power  of  war;  they  erect,  within  tea 
fountry,  tribunals  unknown  to  our  conftitutioris  and  laws,  ia 
cafes  to  which  thefe  are  competent — whereas  the  treaty  with 
Great  Britain  only  provides  for  the  appointment  of  arbitrators 
in  cafes  to  which  our  tribunals  and  laws  are  incompetent  5  and, 
they  make  difpofitions  concerning  the  territory  and  property  of 
the  United  Stares. 

It  is  true,  that  fome  of  the  treaties  made  under  the  forme* 
government,  though  fubfequent  to  the  propofing  of  the  arti- 
cles of  confederation  to  the  Hates,  were  prior  to  the  final  a- 
doption  of  thefe  articles  j  but  Hill  it  is  prefumable  that  the 
treaties  were  negotiated  with  an  eye  to  the  powers  of  the 
fending  national  compact.  Thofe  with  Great  Britain,  Sweden^ 
tRuflia,  and  Morocco,  and  the  convention  with  France,  were, 
pofterior  to  the  completion  of  that  compact. 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  argued,  that  a  more  extenfive  conftruc- 
tipo  of  the  power  of  treaty,  in  the  confederation,  than  in  our 
prefent  conltitution,  was  countenanced  by  the  union  in  the 
fame  body  of  legiflative  powers  with  the  power  of  treaty. 
But  this  argument  can  have  no  force,  when  it  is  confidered 
that  the  principal  legiflative  powers  with  regard  to  the  objects 
embraced  by  the  treaties  cf  congvefs,  were  not  vetxed  in  that 
body,  but  remained  with  the  individual  fiates — Such  are  the 
power  of  fpecific  taxation,  the  power  of  regulating  trade,  the 
power  of  naturalization,   &c. 

It  in  theory  the  objects  of  legiflative  power  are  excepted 
put  of  the  power  of  treaty,  thij  mutt  have  been  equally,  at 
leafl,  the  cafe  with  the  legiflative  powers  of  the  Hate  govern* 
ments  as  with  thofe  of  the  United  States — Indeed  the  argu- 
ment was  much  ftrongej  for  the  gbjeftion,  where  diitinct  go- 


C a  m  I l i.  v  s— No.  XXXVIIf.  273 

vernments  were  the  depr.fitory  of  the  legislative  power,  than 
where  the  fame  government  was  the  depofitory  of  tlv.it  p  >wei 
aiui  of  (lie  power  of  treaty. — Nothing  but    th  ific  force 

of  the  power  cf  treaty  could  have  enabled  it  to  penetrate  the 
fcparate  fphcres  of  the  ftate  governments.  The  practice  un- 
der the  confederation  for  fo  many  years,  acquieiced  in  by  all 
the  ftatcs,  is,  therefore,  a  concluiive  illuilration  of  the  power 
of  treaty,  ami  an  irrefiiliblo  refutation  of  the  novel  and  pre- 
posterous doctrine,  which  impeaches  the  constitutionality  of 
that  lately  negociated — It  the  natural  import  of  the  terms 
ufed  in  the  conftitution  were  lefs  clear  and  decifive  than  they 
arB,  that  practice  is  a  commentary  upon  them,  and  fixes  their 
fenfe.  For  the  fenfe  m  which  certain  terms  were  prattifed  up- 
on in  a  prior  conftitution  of  government,  mult  be  preiumed  to 
have  been  intended,  in  mini;  the  iike  terms  in  a  fubfequent 
conftitution  o(  government  for  the  fame  nation. 

Accordingly,  the  practice  under  the  prefent  government  be- 
fore the  late  treaty,  has  corresponded  with  that  fenfe. 

Our  treaties  with  federal  Indian  nations  regulate  and  change 
the  boundaries  between  them  and  the  United  .States — And  in 
addition  to  compenfations  in  grots,  they  flipulate  the  payment 
of  certain  Specific  and  perpetual  annuities.  Thus  a  treaty  in 
Auguft,  179Q,  with  the  Creeks  (article  5)  promifes  them  the 
yearly  fum  o(  one  thoufand  five  hundred  dollars — And  fimi- 
lar  features  are  found  in  fubfequent  treaties  with  the  Six  Na- 
tions, the  Cherokccs,  and  the  North  Weftern  Indians — This 
laSt  has  jujl  been  ratified  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  fenate. 
It  Stipulates  an  annuity  of  9500  dollars — and  relinquishes  to 
the  Indians,  a  large  tract  of  land  which  they  had,  by  pre- 
ceding treaties,  ceded  to  the  United  States. 

Hence  we  find  that  our  former  treaties  under  the  prefent 
government,  as  well  as  one  fubfequent  to  that  under  conside- 
ration, contradict  the  doclrine  iet  up  agninft  its  constitutional- 
ity— in  the  important  particulars  of  making  difpofuions  con- 
cerning the  territory  and  property  of  the  United  States,  and 
binding  them  to  raife  and  pay  money.  Thefe  treaties  hive  not 
only  been  made  by  the  prefulent,  and  ratified  by  the  fenate, 
without  any  impeachment  of  their  constitutionality,  hut  the 
houfe  of  representatives  has  heretofore  concurred,  and  with- 
out objection,  in  carrying  them  into  eiicct,  by  the  requifite 
appropriation  of  money. 

The  ccnSuIar  convention  with  France  flar.t'.s  in    a   peculiar 

predicament.  It  was  negociated  under  the  former  government, 

and  ratified   under  the  prefent  ;  and    fo   may   be  regarded  as 

a  treaty  of  both  governments)  illustrative  of  the  extent  of  the 

r  power  of.  treaty  in  both.  The  delicate  and  even,  the  cmaordi- 


274  Ca  mill  us— No.  XXXVIII. 

nary  nature  of  the  provifions  it  contains,  have  been  adverted 
to.  Though  all  reflecting  men  have  thought  ill  of  the  proprie- 
ty of  fome  of  them,  as  inconveniently  breaking  in  upon  our 
interior  adminiftration,  legiflative,  executive,  and  judiciary; 
only  acquiefcing  in  them  from  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of 
ftipulations  entered  into  by  our  public  agents  under  competent 
powers,  yet  no  queflion  has  been  heard  about  their  conflituti- 
onality.  And  congrefs  have,  by  law,  allifted  their  execution  by 
making  our  judicial  tribunals,  and  the  public  force  of  the  coun- 
try, auxiliary  to  the  decrees  of  the  foreign  tribunals  which  they 
authorize  within  our  territory. 

It  it  mould  be  faid,  that  our  conftitution,  by  making  all 
former  treaties  and  engagements  as  obligatory  upon  the  United 
States,  under  that  conftitution,  as  they  were  under  the  confe- 
deration, rendered  the  ratification  of  the  convention  a  matter 
of  neceflity — the  anfwer  is,  that  either  the  engagements,  which 
it  contracted,  were  already  conclufive,  or  they  were  not — if  the 
former,  there  was  no  need  of  a  ratification  ;  if  the  latter,  there 
was  no  abfolute  obligation  to  it.  And,  in  every  fuppofition,  a 
ratification,  by  the  preiident,  with  the  confent  of  the  fenate, 
could  have  been  predicated  only  upon  the  power  given  in  the, 
prefent  conftitution  in  relation  to  treaties  -,  and  to  have  any  va- 
lidity, mui't  have  been  within  the  limit  of  that  power. 

But  it  has  been  heretofore  feen  that  the  inference  from  this 
inflrument  is  no  lefs  ftrong,  if  referred  to  the  power  under  the 
confederation,  than  if  referred  to  the  power  under  the  prefent 
conftitution. 

How  happens  it,  that  all  thefe  invafions  of  the  conftitution, 
if  they  were  fuch,  were  never  difcovered,  and  that  all  the  de- 
partments of  the  government,  and  all  parties  in  the  public 
councils  fhould  have  co-operated  in  giving  them  a  fanction  ? 
Does  it  not  prove  that  all  were  convinced,  that  the  power  of 
treaty,  applied  in  our  exterior  relations  to  objects,  which,  in 
the  ordinary  courfe  of  internal  adminiftration  and  in  reference 
to  ourfelves,  were  of  the  cognizance  of  the  legrilative  power? 
and  particularly  that  the  former  was  competent  to  bind  the  lat- 
ter in  the  delicate  points  of  raifing  and  appropriating  money  ? 
If  competent  to  this,  what  legiflative  power  can  be  more  facred, 
more  out  of  its  reach  r 

Let  me  now  aik  (and  a  very  folemn  queflion  it  is,  efpecially 
for  thofe  who  are  bound  by  oath  to  fupport  the  conftitution) 
lias  it  not  been  dernbnftrated  that  the  provifions  in  the  treaty 
are  jullified  by  the  true  and  roanifsft  interpretation  of  the  i  on* 
ftitution — are  fanctioned  by  the  practice  upon  a  fimilar  power 
under  the  confederation,  and  by  the  practice  in  other  inftancqs 
under  the  prefent  government  ? 


Cam  ill  us— No.  XXXVIIL  275 

If  this  has  been  demonftrated,  what  (hall  we  think  of  the 
candor  and  fincerity  of  the  objections  which  nave  been  erected 
on  the  bafis  of  a  contrary  fuppofition  ?  Do  they  not  unequi- 
vocally prove,  that  the  adversaries  of  the  treaty  have  been  rc- 
folved  to  difcredit  it  by  every  artifice  they  could  invent?  that 
they  have  not  had  truth  for  their  guide,  and  confeqaently  are 
v§ry  unfit  guides  for  the  public  opinion,  very  uniafe  guardians 
of  the  public  welfare  ? 

It  is  ready  painful  and  difgufting  to  obferve  fophifms  (o  mi- 
ferable  as  thofe  which  queftion  the  conftitutionality  of  the  trea- 
ty, retailed  to  an  enlightened  people,  and  infilled  upon  with  fo 
much  teeming  fervency  and  earneltnefs — It  is  impoffible  not  to 
beftow  on  fenfible  men,  who  act  this  part,  the  imputation  of 
hypocrify — The  abfurdity  of  the  doctrine  is  too  glaring  to  per- 
mit even  charity  itielf  to  fuppofe  it  fincere — If  it  were  poiiible 
to  imagine  that  a  majority  in  any  branch  of  our  government, 
could  betray  the  conftitution,  and  trifle  with  the  nation,  fo  far 
as  to  adopt  and  all  upon  iuch  a  doctrine — it  would  be  time  to 
defpair  of  the  republic. 

There  would  be  no  fecurity  at  home,  no refpe&ability  abroad. 
Our  conltitutional  charter  would  become  a  dead  letter.  The  or- 
gan of  our  government  for  foreign  affairs  would  be  treated  with 
derifion  whenever  he  ihould  hereafter  talk  of  negociation  or 
treaty.  May  the  great  Ruler  of  nations  avert  from  our  coun- 
try fo  grievous  a  calamity  !,*  CAM1LLUS. 

*  It  is  very  probable,  that  a  treaty  with  Algiers  is  now  on  its  way  to  the  Uni- 
ted States,  which  may  becxpeehd  to  contain  fimilar  ftipulationa  with  that  with 
Morocco — This  treat)-,  which  will  have  coil  the  United  States  no  trifling  funi , 
and  will  be  of  very  great  value  to  our  trade,  muft  equally  fall,  on  the  doctrine 
which  I  oppofe. 

— <  •«€K^<5<*^>>»^5>>  > — 

To  the  Editor  of  the  American  Remembrancer. 
T  II  E  following   Remarks    on  the  treaty  lately  concluded  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,   ivere  'written  very  foon  af- 
ter   that   injlrument   was   made  known   to    the  public,    and  before    ths 
ratification    of  it,  by    the  preftdent    of  the     United  States,    took     effctf. 
The  writer  had  not  feen  any  of  the  voluminous  productions  in   defence  of 
the  treaty,   which  have  appeared,  in  the  different  gazettes  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  Jignatures  of  Camiilus,  Curtius,  A  Citizen,   ecc.  &c. 
And  even  had  he  feen  them,  he  would  not  have  though:  it 
cumbent  on  him,  to  anfioer  or  detect  all  the  fophijlry  and  fallacious  . 
ments  and  jlatcments  they  contain.    In  the   courfe  of  this  ,   /■' 

hath  candidly  endeavoured  to  w  igh  the  real  merits  of,  and  objections  tot 
the  treaty,  with  the  impartiality  of  a  J.  r  by  party 

nor  any  vvorfe  motive,  but  by  a  fledfafl  attachment  to  the  United  States 
alone,  the  principles  of  the  r:x...  the  prosperity  of  the  g 


tj4   3 
Remarks 

ON    THE 

Treaty  of  Amity,  Navigation,  and  Commerce} 

'Concluded  between  Lord  Grenvi'le  and  Mr.  Jay,  $n  the  Part  y 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  refpcclively. 

By  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States. 

ok  ves  non  vol'is. — Virgil. 

Not  for  yourfelves,  ye  merchants,  fliall  ye  toil, 

Not  for  yourielvcs,  ye  farmers,  plough  the  foil* 

Not  for  yourfelvcs,  ye  ioldiers,  laurels  gain, 

Not  for  yourfelves,  ye  failors,  brave  the  main. — Anonymous. 

**  By  preferitihg  many  propofitions  at  orice,  which  are  to  be  roteel 
for  in  the  lump,  they  hide  what  is  deftined  to  promote  their  own 
private  views,  or  give  a  cbloftr  to  it  by  joining  it  <u)ith  things  which 
they  know  will  fdie  he'd  of  the  mind  of  the  pcoph-." 

De  holme  on  the  Britifb  Coiflilu^ion, 

THE  treaty  of  amity,  commerce,  and  navigation,  lately 
concluded  in  London  between  Lord  GrenviJle  and  Mr. 
Jay,  on  the  part  of  the  king  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  refpe£tively,  is  one  of  the  moll  important  fubjects  ever 
agitated  in  America  (ince  fhe  became  an  independent  nation  ; 
h  fcems,  indeed,  to  1  ave  engrorled  the  public  mind  more  than 
any  other,  the  adoption  of  the  federal  conftituticn,  only  ex- 
cepted.—  Reafon,  prejudice,  and  pafllon,  equally  prompt  to 
the  difcuffidn  of  it,  and  every  individual  cnlifts  himfelf  under 
the  banners  of  one  or  the  other.  This  renders  a  temperate  en- 
quiry into  its  merits,  without  regard,  either  to  the  original 
framers,  or  its  fubfequent  advocates  or  enemies,  an  object  of 
the  firft  importance.  1  (hall,  therefore,  leave  it  to  others  to  dif- 
cufs,  whether  the  late  envoy  extraordinary  entered  upon,  and 
concluded  it,  in  purfuance  of  general  or  particular  inftructions, 
either  from  the  prefident  of  the  United  States  alone,  or  by  and 
•with  the  advice  and  confent  of  the  fenate ;  or  whether,  he  pur- 
fued  the  dictates  of  his  own  better  judgment,  without  any  autho- 
rity whatsoever.  If,  however,  there  mould  appear  any  thing  in 
the  treaty  to  condemn,  decency,  and  ejlablifbed  precedent,  will  re- 
quire, that  i:  fhould  he  confidered  as  the  acl  of  the  minijler,  only  ; 
more  especially  as  the  function  of  the  fupfeme  executive  magif- 
trate  of  the  United  States  has  been  hitherto  withheld,  as  we 
have  every  reafon  to  believe. 


Remarks  on   the  Treaty,  £;c.  ijf 

Si;?,  before  enterlftg  into  a  ddouilion  of  the  articles  of  the 
treaty,  it  may  nut  be.  improper  to  advert,  not  only  to  ex;! 
circumiUnces  at  the  time  it  was  concluded,  but  to  fome  ante- 
cedent events,  which  may  be  pre  fumed  to  bare,  had  fome  • 
ration  upon  the  mir.ds  of  the  nations,  whofe  mutual  Friendship 
is,  by  this  instrument,  propofed  to  be  conciliated,  ?v{  perpe* 
tuallv  cemented.  Fot  a  treaty  (fo  far  as  relates  to  a  free  republic? 
at  leaf*)  ought  to  be  confjd.  I  I  of  the  nation,  and  not 

merely  of  the  government,  only  3  or,  hi  other  words,  of  (he 
parties  who  conclude,  fign,  and  ratify  them.  To  this  end,  due' 
attention  fhould  be  paid  to  the  prevailing  Sentiment  a£  the  na- 
tion, fo  as  to  remove  every  obstacle,  to  that  cordiality,  and  un- 
feigned friendfhin,  which  treaties  of  amity  are  intended  to  pro- 
mote. 

It  is  juft  twenty  years  fince  the  United  States  of  Am 
Stimulated  by  the  tyrannical  ufurpations  of  the  prefenr  king  of 
Great  Britain,  declared  the  good  people  of  thefe  ftates  atbfnlted 
from  their  allegiance  to  that  prince,  and  that  all  political  con- 
nexion with  Great  Britain  ought  to  be  totally  diflblved.  A 
cruel  civil  war  was  waged  againlt  them  during  a  period  of 
eight  years,  the  calamities  of  which  were  heightened  by  every 
wanton  act.  of  depfedation,  opprelfion,  and  irrfuit,  that  rapa- 
city, cruelty,  and  a  vindictive  fpirit  couid  prompt  men  to  com- 
mit. Our  ilaves  were  excited  to  rebel  againSt  us;  the  favnges 
on  our  frontiers  were  bafely  Stimulated  to  add,  to  the  fangui- 
nary  meafures  of  the  BritiSh  enemy,  their  own  more  inhuman 
mode  df  wnrlare.  Our  towns  were  wanronlv  confirmed  to 
alhes,  and  our  country  every  where  laid  wafte.  Our  property 
was  feized  for  the  ufe  of  the  armies  of  our  enemies ;  or  de- 
itrcyed,  without  compenfation,  and  without  compunction  or 
reitraint:  Thoufands  of  our  negroes,  the  cultivators  of  the  foil 
in  the  fouthern  dates  (and  forming  the  greater  part  of  the 
moveable  property  of  their  matters)  were  enticed  or  forced  away 
from  their  fervice — Eighty  thoufand  of  our  fel  ow  citizens  are 
fuppofed  to  have  fallen  victims  to  the  offended  majefty  of  that 
vindictive  monarch,  whofe  name  was  more  execrared  amon* 
us,  than  ever  Nero's  was  at  Rome.  Inability  to  profceute  the 
war  longer,  produced  a  peace  ;  but  it  was  1  eaee  without  for- 
gtvenefs,  without  friendship,  and  withfcut  lir.  erity.  During 
the  long  courfe  of  hostilities,  everv  fentiment  of  regard  and  of 
mutual  confidence  had  been  extinguished  on  the  part  of  both 
nations,  and  the  pe  ;ce  concluded  between  therri,  waa  raithef 
calculated  to  perpetuate,  t*ha*n  to  extinguish  the  remembrance 
of  their  n;utual  animofity.  The  citizens  of  the  middle  and 
i'.ern  llatct   complained   that   thvir   particular -mterefU  had 

Vol  •  HI.  Q^n, 


•278  REMARKS    ON    THE    TREATY,    &C. 

been  overlooked,  or  facrificed,  by  iome  of  the  articles  of  the 
treaty.  The  northern  dates  found  their  trade  abridged,  by  the 
very  inftrument  which  they  fuppofed  would  have  fecured  its 
unlimited  extenfion.  Thus  even  the  treaty  of  peace  had  no  other 
recommendation,  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  America,  than 
the  termination  of  hodility.  His  Britannic  majedy,  on  the  other 
hand,  appears  not  to  have  entered  into  it  with  good  faith.  The 
wedern  pofts,  which  were  to  have  been  delivered  up  "  with 
all  convenient  fpeed,"  were  forcibly  detained  in  the  poffeffion 
of  his  troops  ;  and  the  negroes  and  other  property  taken  from 
the  people  of  America,  were,  in  direct  violation  of  the  treaty, 
carried  away  without  compenfation.  An  equal  difpofition  to 
evade,  or  violate  fome  of  the  articles  of  the  treaty  was  attri- 
buted to  feveral  of  the  dates,  and  mutual  complaints  and  recii- 
rninations  took  place  between  the  two  nations.  The  restraints 
impofed  upon  our  Weft  India  commerce  by  his  Britannic  ma- 
jefty  ;  his  fuppofed  ill  offices  towards  us,  in  exciting  the  depre- 
dations of  the  Barbary  dates  upon  our  commerce;  and  in  fo- 
menting difcontems  among  the  Indian  nations,  and  even  ilimu- 
lating  and  aiding  them  in  acts  of  hoftility  againft  us,  occafioned 
thofe  wounds  to  inflame  and  feder  anewy  which  had  been, 
at  bed,  imperfectly  cicatrifed. 

The  averfion  of  his  Britannic  majedy  to  enter  into  any  com- 
mercial treaty  with  the  United  States,  had  manifelled  itfelf, 
in  the  rejection  of*  all  overtures  made  for  that  purpofe  by  the 
prelent  vice-pTehdent  of  the  United  States,  who  was  fent  thi- 
ther to  effect  iuch  a  negociation,  not  long  after  the  conclufion 
of  the  peace. — The  adoption  of  the  federal  conditution  re- 
moved all  thofe  obdacics,  which,  it  was  pretended,  prevented 
the  court  of  Great  Britain  from  entering  into  negociations  with 
us.  It  did  more. — It  removed  every  barrier  to  the  full  and 
complete  execution  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  by  rendering  that  treaty  a  part  of  the  fupreme 
Jaw  of  the  land  :  the  federal  courts,  in  their  decifions,  mani- 
feded  the  mod  unequivocal  difpofition  to  give  to  the  treaty  the 
mod  favorable  conltruetion  on  behalf  of  Britifh  creditors. — It 
was  the  expectation  of  all,  that  the  energy  of  the  federal  go- 
vernment would  not  fail  to  extort  from  his  Britannic  majelly 
an  equal  compliance  with  the  treaty  on  his  part. 

The  conditution,  at  the  time  of  its  adoption,  was  regarded 
as  the  guarantee  of  a  free  trade  with  the  Wed  Indies,  anil 
with  every  other  part  of  the  work! ;  it  fcon  became  matter  of 
wonder  arid  of  diifatisfaction,  that  it  had  not  produced  thefs 
effects.  It  was  finally  made  known  that  the  executive  of  the 
15nited  Sulci  had  taken  meafurcs  to  difcover  the  fentiments  of 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  Bed  279 

ihe  Britifh  court  on  the  fubjeeff.  of  a  treaty  of  commerce,  and 
that  the  propofuion  ftill  continued  to  be  treated  with  difrefpect. 
— In  the  mean  time,  France  was  engaged  in  a  revolution,  the 
principles  of  which  were  fuppofed  to  bear  fo  great  an  analogy 
to  our  own,  that  every  American  felt  himfelf  intercfted  in  her 
fuccefs. — Our  prayers  were  continually  offered  up  in  her  be- 
half, and  it  was  concluded  that  the  cords  of  amity  would  be 
drawn  as  clofely  as  poflible  between  the  two  republics. — His 
Britannic  majefty  was  not  long  in  joining  the  alliance  formed 
among  the  enemies  of  the  new  republic.  America  foon  found 
herfelf  made  a  party  in  the  war,  by  bft  faffierings  :  the  fpoliati- 
ons  on  our  commerce  are  well  known  ;  they  have  been  felt 
through  every  part  of  the  United  States.  Not  only  our  veffels 
with  their  cargoes  were  feized  and  confiicated,  becaufe  engaged 
in  commerce  with  the  enemies  of  his  Britannic  majefty  ;  but 
our  citizens  were  abufed  in  their  perfons,  imprifoned  or  im- 
prefled  into  the  fervice  of  a  fovereign  whom  they  derefted,  un- 
der pretext  that  they  were  his  fubjects.  Innumerable  acts  of 
piracy  were  committed  by  a  fwarm  of  privateers  which  infeft- 
ed  our  coafts;  nor  was  the  infolence  pratliftd  by  his  Britannic 
majetty's  lea  officers  inferior  to  the  depredations  of  the  priva- 
teers. Stimulated  by  refentment,  and  a  defire  of  retaliation, 
fome  of  the  citizens  of  America  took  commilfions  from,  or 
entered  into  the  fervice  of,  their  filler  republic.  They  were 
profecuted  for  exercifing  a  natural  right,  not  repugnant  to  any 
treaty,  or  known  law  of  the  land.  Thefe  profecutions  were,  by 
the  fufferers  and  their  friends,  considered  as  an  act  of  fuper- 
errogation  in  our  government,  founded  on  a  partiality  to  Britifh 
intereft,  in  oppofition  to  that  of  France.  Every  a£l  of  conoef- 
fion  or  conciliation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  feemed 
to  give  new  life  and  vigour  to  the  arrogance,  infolence,  and 
depredations  of  the  Britifh  (hips  of  war  and  cruifers.  The 
Indians,  whofe  hoftile  difpofition  towards  us  was  fuppofed  to 
be  the  effect  of  Britifh  perfidy,  profecuted  the  war  again  ft  us 
in  a  ftile  altogether  new,  and  gave  reafon  to  prefume  that  tl  y 
were  not  only  aided  with  arms,  ammunition,  and  warlike  ltor .-, 
bv  the  Britifh  government,  but  that  they  were  ac.hr.lly  aflG 
bv  the  officers  and  militia,  if  not  by  the  regular  troops  of  that 
nation.  Congress,  to  whom  it  belongs  to  decide  upon  a  ju/t 
caufe  of  nutir,  and  to  regulate  commerce^  roufed  bv  fo  many  re- 
iterated acts  of  aggrefhon,  had  refolved  upon  fome  cautionary 
meaiures  to  fecure  indemnification  for  injury,  and  to  retaliaie 
upon  a  nation  from  whom  fo.  many  vexations  were  daily  receive 
ed.  The  reprefentatives  of  the  people  concurred  in  the  mea« 
fures  propofed,  by  a  great  majority — the  fenate  were  divide. 


Jtfe)  REMARKS    ON     THE    TkLITY,     fCCi 

t))e  vice-prefident  held  /Af  balance  in  his  hand,  and  the  lcaic 
preponderated  againit  the  repn  funativc?  of  the  people.  At 
this  moment  of  e  fie  we  fee  nee  \\\  the  public  mind,  the  late  en- 
voy extraordinary  was  appointed  ;  the  object  of  his  milium  was 
fuppoled  to  be  a  demand  of  reparation  of  injuries,  and  a  com- 
pliance with  the  terms  of  the  violated  treaty  of  peace. 

From  this  fnort  recapitulation  of  preceding  events,  it  will 
r.ppear,  that  the  public  rnind  was  by  no  means  prepared  to  en- 
ter, with  cordiality,  into  a  date  of  amity  with  a  nation  whole 
government  had,  for  twenty  year«,  incefiantly  perfecuted  the 
United  States,  eh  her  by  open  acts  of  hoflihty,  or  the  iniidi- 
ous  arts  of  fecret  animofity.  It  was,  therefore,  reafonably  ex- 
pected, that  a  treaty,  whefe  object  was  to  bind  the  two  nati- 
ons in  amify  with  each  other,  would  contain  within  it  every 
thing  neceflary  to  foften  afperity — to  fubdue  refentment — to 
fatisfy  claims,  and  to  conciliate  affection.  To  determine  how 
far  this  expectation  has  been  fulfilled  by  the  prefent  treaty, 
it  wiil  be  neceffary,  not  only  to  11  ate  what  it  contains,  but  alfo, 
what  it  does  not  contain.  1  (hail  begin  with  the  former ;  and, 
in  order  to  do  it  with  the  more  regularity,  I  fhall  take  it  article- 
by  article. 

The  preamble  ftates  the  motives  to  the  treaty  to  be,  the  de- 
fire  "  of  terminating  the  differences  between  his  Britannic 
majefty  and  the  United  States,  in  fuch  a  manner,  as,  with- 
out reference  to  the  merits  of  their  refpeclitis  cotupjaists  and  prer 
ten/ions,  may  be  belt  calculated  to  produce  mutual  fatisfaction 
and  good  undcrilanding."  Such  a  preamble  would  either  lead 
US  to  expect  the  moft  liberal  concejfions  in  favor  of  the  United 
Scares,  or  a  total  dere/iclion  of  their  complaints  by  the  envoy 
e.\  raordinarv.  On  the  part  of  his  Britannic  majelty  fuch  a 
v  :'. cr  might  be  conndered,  if  not  a  mark  of  great  magnani- 
mity, at  lealt,  of  ^vtat  condefcenfion,  whilft  his  (hips  of  war 
an<'  privateers  were  in  the  full  career  of  plunder  on  the  com- 
n  eree  or  our  unreliliing  citizens.  Nor  can  it  be  altogether 
denied,  that  his  majefty,  as  well  as  the  United  States,  had 
fome  caufe  tp  murmur  at  the  events  of  his  reign  : — He  had 
iQ.t  an  immenfe  territory,  which  he  had  regarded  as  his  here- 
ditary right,  jure  divino,  and  had  fpent  ahove  an  hundred  mil- 
lions fterling  of  his  fubjects'  money  in  the  attempt  to  retain 
it  in  fubjection  to  him.  He  might  be  compared  to  an  unlucky 
fporifman  whofe  over-charged  gun  had  buifled,  burnt  his  fin- 
gers, given  him  a  found  doufe  in  the  chaps,  and  knock'd  out 
half  a  dozen  of  his  teeth,  in  attempting  to  lhoot  a  partridge  : 
— and  America  to  the  poor  bird  itfelf,  which  had  got  a  griev- 
pus,   wound,  in    fpite    of    the   unlkiifulnefs  of   the    au^waid 


Rem^R^s  on  the  Treaty,  *£:c.  281 

markl'man.  Confidering,  howeve-:  the  prefumable  obi  eel  of 
the  million  of  the  envoy  efctraordin  u y,  it  appears  lomewhnt 
unaccountable  upon  what  grounds  he  could  iuppofe  himfelf 
authorized  to  reiincjuifn  the  difcuffiun  of  the  complaints  of  the 
United  States,  unlefs  indeed  he  apprehended  that  his  Britan- 
nic majefly's  choier  Blight  be  fo  far  roufed  by  it,  as  again  to 
KJe&  a  negociation,  and  compel  him  to  return  to  America 
re  injeEla  ;*  or,  perhaps,  he  was  ienfible,  that  in  the  adjuft- 
ment  of  fuch  a  variety  of  claims  as  America  luas  entitled  to  in- 
fft  on,  the  bufinefs  might  be  fo  far  procraitinated  as  to  leiTen 
the  glory  of  the  achievement;  or,  perhaps,  retard  bis  return 
to  his  native  country,  in  time  to  accent  that  accutnuUiiicn  of  ho~ 
nor  which  there  awaited  him.  But  let  us  now  proceed  to  exa- 
micus  eke  treaty,  fome  of  the  articles  of  which  I  (hall  pafs 
over  without  obfervation,  as  being  .-.  ithcr  of  little  moment,  or 
cuflomary  in  fimilar  treaties  ;  whflft  upon  fome  others  I  may 
Willi  to  detain  the  reader's  attention. 

I.  Of  eight  and  twenty  articles  which  the  treaty  contains, 
the  hrlt  ten  are  declared  to  be  fermanetrt  1  the  remainder  are 
of  limited  duration.  The  fiili  Itipulates,  in  the  ordinary  form, 
that  there  (hall  be  peace,  "  and  true  and  fincere  friendihip  be- 
tween his  Britannic  majefty  and  his  fucceffcrs,  and  the  United 
States,  and  between  the  people,  refpecUvely,  without  excepti- 
on of  perfons  or  places." — To  render  this  article  cfTeclual,  it 
will  be  necell'ary  that  the  fubfequent  articles  (hould  contain  all 
Such  things  as  '*  are  calculated  to  produce  mutual  fatisfaclion 
and  good  under  ft  anding  between  the  nations  :"  ocherwiie,  thi3 
article  will  ever  remain  in  the  fame  ftate  of  inexccution,  as  thofe 
relating  to  the  negroes  and  the  ivejlern  poj'h,  in  the  treaty  of 
peace. 

II.  The  fecond  article  ftipulates  that  his  Britannic  majefty 
will  withdraw  all  his  troops  and  garrifons  from  all  polls  and 
places  within  the  United  States,  on  or  before  the  fir  It  day  of 
June,  1796.  This,  by  the  treaty  of  peace,  ought  to  have  been 
done,  at  leajl,  a  dozen  years  ago ;  and  it  ap.pea.rs  iomewhat 
Urange  that  the  immediate  performance  of  it  was  not  nu-lc  a 
condicion,  precedent  to  any  further  negotiation,  except!  lor 
reparation  for  the  fpoliations  on  our  commerce,  ice.  lor  how 
can  we  be  allured  that  his  Britannic  majefty  will  obferve  more 
good  faith  in  the  performance  of  this  treaty,  than  the  former, 
if  an  excufe  can  be  found   to  evade   it  ?    'i  he   only    difference 

*  Whilft  the  treaty  was  in  difcu.Ti  >n  before  the  fcr.arc,  3  certain  gentleman, 
iii^h  in  office,  who  \\  as  once  ambaflador  at  the  Britifl)  court,  to  de- 
clare, that  It  could  have  procured  a  better  treaty,  but  de:  lo,  becaufe 

\\r  thought  it  uot  iufikk'u:!)-  advantageous  to  America. 


282  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

that  this  part  of  the  fecond  article  makes  between  our  prefent? 
and  former  fituation  is,  that  the  detention  of  the  polls,  hitherto, 
is  evidently  fanclioned  by  the  prefent  treaty;  and  all  compenfation 
for  former  breaches  of  faith,  and  aggreflions  in  this  refpect, 
moft  genercujly  waved,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  *,  it  muft 
be  confefled,  however,  that  this  article  furniflies  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  "  with  all  convenient  /peed,"  in  the  former 
treaty  •,  which,  in  all  future  negociations,  with  his  Britannic 
majelty,  may  be  understood  to  mean  a  dozen  years. 

The  fame  article  provides  that  the  fettlers  and  traders,  with- 
in the  precincts  or  jurifdiction  of  the  weftern  ports,  may  con-' 
tinue  to  reftde  there,  without  being  compelled  to  become  citizens  cf 
the  United  States,  or  to  take  any  oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  govern- 
ment thereof,  or  remove  and  difpofe  of  their  lands  and  other 
property,  at  their  election.  This,  as  it  refpects  traders,  and 
other  tranjient  perfons,  is  juft  and  proper  :  as  it  relates  to  land- 
holders it  will  be  made  the  fubject  of  future  remark,  when  we 
examine  the  ninth  article. 

III.  The  third  article  contains  a  variety  of  ftipulations,  fome 
of  which  appear  to  be  reciprocally  liberal,  whilfl  others  mani- 
feft  a  fpirit  of  accommodation  and  conceihon,  on  the  part  of 
the  United  States,  which  very  few  are  likely  to  feel,  in  any  de- 
gree, equal  to  the  envoy  extraordinary. — If  it  be  true  that  the 
moft  important  ftations  for  carrying  on  the  fur  trade,  &c.  are 
within  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  which,  I  am  told, 
is  the  cafe,  Great  Britain  will  be  no  fmall  gainer  by  that  equal 
intercourfe,  which  this  article  permits  upon  the  lakes  and  the 
waters  thereof,  as  alio  the  free  ufe  of  the  Miihffippi,*  and  the 
portage  places  in  the  territories  of  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain,  reflectively.  But  the  total  exciufton  of  American  veJJils 
from  the  fea-ports,  harbours,  creeks,  and  rivers  of  the  Britifh 
American  territories  on  the  Atlantic,  gives  to  this  article  a  very 
difadvantageous  turn  for  the  commercial  interefts  of  the  U- 
nited 'States;  thereby  fecuring  to  the  Britilh  nation  a  de- 
cided and  perpetual  pre-eminence  over  them  in  the  trade  with 
the  north-weftern  parts  of  the  American  republic  ;  fince  all 
articles  for  exportation  to  foreign  parts,  mull  either  go  down 
the  St.  Lawrence  and  be  exported  to  Britain,  in  Britifh  fhips, 
or  be  brought  over  land  to  the  head  waters  of  Hudfon's  river, 
or  fome  other  lefs  convenient  communication  with  the  Atlantic 
ports  of  the  United  States. — Foreign  goods  muft  be  tranfported 

*  It  may,  with  no  fmall  propriety,  be  aflced,  on  what  part  of  the  eaftcrn 
fide  of  the  Miffiffippi  his  Britannic  majtily  poffvffcs  any  territory?  1  know  u( 
none;  and  it  noujlttj  perhaps,  puzzle  the  envoy  extraordinary  himftlf  to  poitj^ 
it  out. 


ivF.MARKS    ON    THE    TREATY,    &C.  283 

to  the  weftern  territories  in  like  manner.  The  communication 
from  the  lakes  to  Quebec,  by  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  is  fo 
much  eafierthan  to  New  York,  by  the  river  Hudfon,*  and  the 
advantages  (if  I  am  rightly  informed)  in  every  refpecl:  fo 
much  greater,  as  to  preclude  all  competition  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States.  Hence  it  feems  probable  that  Great  Britain  will 
continue  to  monopolize  the  trade  on  the  lakes,  and  finally,  the 
whole  trade  of  the  American  north  weftern  territory.  Other 
caufes  than  thofe  already  mentioned  will  contribute  to  promote 
this.  British  traders  are  already  fettled  at  the  mofi  advantageous 
Jlations  for  carrying  on  commerce,  and  probably  have  pollen1  ed 
themftlvcs  of  all  the  land  at  thofe  places,  which  the  preceding 
article  fecures  to  them  for  ever.  An  American  going  there  to 
fettle  would  find  himfelf  under  all  the  difadvantages  of  attempt- 
ing to  ellablilh  himfelf  in  a  foreign  country,  and  expofed  to  all 
the  ill  offices  which  jealoufy  could  fuggelt. 

I  fhall  not  here  enquire  how  far  the  United  States  had  a  ri«ht 
to  infill  on  the  free  navigation  of  the  river  St.  Lawrence,  at 
kaft  for  their  veftels  bound  from  one  part  of  the  United  States 
to  another,  rsferving  that  quefiion  for  another  place;  but  it  is 
obfervable,  that  while  our  veffels  are  totally  excluded  from  the 
Atlantic  ports  of  Canada,  &c.  the  vefTels  of  thofe  countries 
may  freely  navigate  our  rivers  f  as  far  as  the  highefc  ports  of 
entry  for  foreign  fhips,  in  any  part  of  the  United  States.  This 
want  of  reciprocity  will  be  excufed  by  the  advocates  for  the 
treaty,  by  a  general  reference  to  colonial  laws  ;  to  which  I 
fhall  offer  an  anfwer  in  its  proper  place. 

Commercial  regulations,  not  founded  in  experience,  can 
never  be  adopted  with  too  much  caution.  They  ought  never  to 
find  a  place  in  a  perpetual  treaty;  lor  whatever  inconvenience 
or  difadvantage  refult  from  them,  it  cannot  be  removed  with- 
out hazarding  a  war;  iince  it  can  never  be  expected  that  a  com- 
mercial nation,  tenacious  of  her  interefts,  will  ever  refign  an  ad- 
vantage that  is  once  fecured  by  a  perpetual  treaty.  Such  a  na- 
tion is  the  Britilh. 

*  Nothing  appears  more  qneftienabfe  than  that  policy,  which  lays  open  the 
navigation  of  our  rivers  to  thole  maritime  powers  with  wh.irn  we  may  be  even- 
tually engaged  in  war.  Experience  wugbt  have  taught  us  this  truth  in  the  courfe 
of  our  war  with  O/eat  Biitaiu. 

f  The  vrittr,  for  want  of  a  correct  rup,  ami  ilt  fcription  of  thofe  parts  of 
the  United  States,  is  unable  to  dclccsdto  luci;  particulars  a»  would  iliuurate  this 

l>aft  ot    flli  Hi.  j.ct. 


i§4  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  £cc. 

IV.  ism  V.  As  thefe  articles  relate  altogether  to  an  amicable 
adjuftmi  nt  of  fomt  doubts  refpedting  our  boundaries,  I  pie- 
fume  they  are  proper  enough  for  that  purpofe.* 

VI.  The  fixth  article  recites,  that  it  is  alleged,  bv  divers  of 
his  majcity's  fubjects,  that  debts,  bona  fide  contracted  before 
the  peace,  (till  remain  owing  to  them  by  the  citizens  of  the 
United  .States,  "  and,  that,  by  the  operation  of  various  lawful 
impediments  fir.ee  the  peace,"  the  recovery  lias  been  delayed, 
and  the  value  and  lecurity  of  the  debt  leilcned.  It  ftipulate&, 
therefore,  for  the  appointment  of  a  board  of  cotnmiiEon 
part  Brliijh  and  part  American,  to  examine  all  complaints  n 
red  to  therri,  "  and  to  take  into  confider-aion  all  claims,  whe- 
ther of  principal  cr  ifrt&eft',  or  balances  of  principal  and  bale* 
reft,  atid  to  determine  the  lame  refpectively,  according  to  equity 
and  juftice  5"  they  may  alfo  examine  all  per  Jons  th'dt  may  c<m 
fore  item,  and  receive  in  evidence  written  depofitions,  books,  or 
papers,  or  copies  or  extracts  thereof,  duly  authenticated  ;  and 
their  award  Ihall,  in  all  cafes,  be  final  and  ccnclnfive,  both  as 
to  the  juiiice  of  the  claim,  and  the  amount  to  be  paid  to  the 
creditor;  which  amount  the  United  States  undertake  to  caufe  to" 
be  paid  in  fpecie,  on  condition  of  fuch  releafes,  cr  cjfignments 
to  be  made  by  the  creditor,  as  the  commiffioners  may  direct. 

I  have  been  greatly  at  a  lofs  to  fuppole  a  cafe  to  which  this 
article  can  apply ;  at  length,  however,  I  think  I  have  {tumbled 
upon  twoj  perhaps  a  third — but  I  am  not  prefumptuous  enough 
to  infift  that  I  am  right  in  either.  The  ih  ft,  I  have  fuppofed  to 
be  the  cafe  of  a  debt  confifcated  or  fequeitered  during  the  U 
where  the  debtor  has  pleaded  fuch  conlifcation  or  fequc.ftration 
IH  bar  of  the  plaintiff's  claim.  When  this  queftion  was  difcufied 
in  the  federal  court  of  Virginia,  the  chief  juitice  of  the  United 
.States  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  treaty  of  peace  annulled  ail 
the  acls  of  fequeftration  pafTed  by  the  feveral  ftates,  though,  at 
that  tune  fovereign  and  independent,  and  avoided  all  acls  dene  in 
purfuance  thereof.^  A  majority  of  the  court  were  of  a  different 
opinion.  Whether  it  was  the  intention  of  the  envoy  extraordi- 
nary to  reftore  to  the  opinion  of  the  chief  juftiee  that  weight, 
which  it  had  loft  on  the  occafion  alluded  to,  1  will  not  pretend 
to   decide;  but  if  my  conjecture  be  juft,  the  Britifli  claimant 

*  See  this  fubj'etS  properly  difcufisd,  in  the  American  Remembrancer,  vol.  I!, 
page  11 6. 

f  The  political  morality  °f  the  ftates  <  :d  for  their  coi 

in  confifcating  and  iequeltering  Britilh  property,  debts,  &e.  It  feems  at  this 
day  forgotten,  that  on  the  27th  o!  November,  J. 7 7  ; ,  concsrkss  earmfly  retain- 
mended  that  meafure  to  the  fcveral  ftate.-,  as  appears  by  their  joutnalt  of  that 
date. 


Remarks  on   the  Treaty,  &c.  285 

Mafgre  the  decifion  of  a  denftitutiona!  court  of  judicature 
may  now  reft  fecurc  of  his  claim,  without  any  abatement. 
The  fecond  cafe  applicable  to  this  article,  I  prefume,  will  arife 
from  the  operation  of  an  act  of  the  legiflature  of  Virginia, 
palled  in  the  year  1787,  repealing  all  acls  of  afiembly  which 
prohibited  the  recovery  of  Britilh  debts,  with  a  fulpcnding 
claufe,  until  the  Briitfh  pojls  in  the  United  States  firntld  be  deli- 
vered up,  and  mealures  taken  for the  further  fulfilment  of  the 
treaty,  by  delivering  up  the  negroes  of  the  citizens  of  that  (late, 
taken  aivay  contrary  to  the  feveuih  article  of  the  treaty  of  pence. 
How  far  this  legal  impediment  might  operate  to  delay  ti>e  debt 
of  a  Britifh  creditor,  or  to  leflen  its  value,  or  fecurity,  I  cannot 
prefume  to  fay  ;  yet  I  fiiould  conclude  that  the  adoption  of  tht 
federal  conftitution  a  few  months  after,  did  very  efre&ually  re- 
move this  legal  impediment.  The  third  cafe,  I  ;>;n  i:ic  i 
from  the  fpecial  wording  of  this  article,  to  fjppof •',  refers  to 
thofe  cafes  where  fuits  have  been  brought,  and  a  verdict  been 
giv   ;i  for  the  defendant;  or  the  principal  debt  n  either 

without  intereft  (if  any  fuch  cafe  has  happened)  rr  with  a  de- 
duction of  intercjl  during  the  tear.  In  thefe  latter  cafes,  the  chief 
juftice  of  the  United  States  had  inftrucled  the  jury  to  give  in- 
tereft without  any  deduction.  They  uniformly  difregarded  the 
inftruction  ;  it  was  neceffary  to  provide  fome  remedy  in  this, 
as  well  as  in  the  fir  ft  mentioned  cafe,  and  it  is  probable  that 
the  opinion  of  the  chief  juftice  of  the  United  States  will  be 
paid  due  refpecr.  to,  by  the  commiflioners  to  be  appointed  in 
virtue  of  this  article.  The  liberality  of  the  envoy  extraordinary 
in  this  article,  evinces,  at  the  fame  time,  the  molt  fcrupulous 
regard  to  the  punctual  adherence  to  the  fpirit  of  treaties,  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States,  and  his  extreme  politenefs  and  gene- 
rofuy  in  palling  over  in  filence  thofe  caufes,  which  gave  rife  to 
the  legal  impediments  thus  happily  removed.  Nothing  renders  a 
treaty  move  refpectable  than  fuch  exalted  alliances  0/  mag- 
nanimity in  the  framers  of  it.* 
Vol.  III.  R  r 

*  Since  this  pamphlet  was  transcribed  for  the  prefs,  I  have  had  an  opportune 
ty  of  coiiverfing  with  an  intelligent  and  well-informed  gentleman,  who  has  fag- 
gcfled  that  an  additional,  an  J  even  the  prlniipal  object  of  the  Gxth  article,  proi>. - 
My  ic,  to  enable  .  wt  to  obtain  compenfdtiqn  from  the  governmei.i  ef* 

the  United  States,  for  the  depreciation  of  money  acluatty  received  by  tlemfelvci  or 
their  agenlt,  during  tit  war  ,  which  payments,  according  r<>  the  genet uxlLfut  oi  ;he 
land,  as  well  between  citizens  as  others,  were. to  be  rati  I  iccording  to  the  nomi- 
nal amount,  without  any  regard  to  the  actual  depreciation  of  money  at  the  time 
ef  payment.  Aivl  further,  to  revive  and  eflablijb  all  claims  on  the  part  of  Briirjh 
»,  againfi  citizens  of  the  United  States,  at  tiie  commencement  ol  the  re«»- 
>\    recovery  of  Which  »vatt  fufpended,  during  the  continuance  ot  the 


286  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

It  has  been  hinted  that  this  court  of  com  mi  (Ti  oners  (a  part  of 
■whom,  as  was  before  obferved,  are  to  be  Briiifh  )  who  are  thus 
to  liquidate  legal  claims  by  one  individual  againft  another,  is 
an  encroachment  upon  the  functions  of  the  federal  judiciary, 
and  a  violation  of  the  conltitution.  The  queftion  is  delicate  and 
important-,  there  is,  moreover,  an  obfeurity  in  this  article, 
which  makes  it  difficult  to  afcertain  its  real  import.  It  may  not 
be  improper  to  notice  fome  parts  of  it,  with  a  view  to  the  dif- 
cuflion  of  this  queftion. —  ift,  The  award  of  the  commiflioners 
fhall  befnal  in  all  cafes,  both  as  to  the  jujlice  of  the  claim,  and 
the  amount  to  be  paid  the  creditor.  2d,  The  United  States  un- 
dertake to  ca ufe  the  fum  awarded  to  be  paid,  &c.  on  condition 
of  fuch  releafes  or  njfignments  to  be  given  by  the  creditor,  as 
the  commiffioners  may  direct — Is  it  meant  that  the  award  fhall 
be  final  and  conclufive  between  the  creditor,  and  the  original 
debtor?  If  fo,  he  mult  be  made  a  party  defendant,  and  that,  I 
prefume,  by  regular procefs :  he  mult  be  heard  in  his  defence; 
he  ought  to  have  cotnpnlfory  procefs  to  procure  the  attendance  of 
iv'itneffes ;  the  truth  of  the  jacls  put  in  iffue  are  to  be  tried  and 
determined  by  the  com  mi  (Loners.  It  belongs  to  the  con- 
stitutional   COURTS  TO    DO  ALL   THESE  THINGSJ   and 

war,  by  the  creditors  thcmfelves,  'oeing  then  confidered  ordechred  alien  enemie.«, 
and,  as  fuch,  incapable  of  fuing  in  our  courts.  This  legal  impediment  having  lefl- 
entu  the  value,  or  diminifhed  the  fecurity  of  their  debts,  they  now  claim  an  in- 
demnification, for  the  fame,  againft.  the  United  States.  If  thefe  conjedures  be 
well-founded,  and  I  fee  no  reafon  to  doubt  them,  hovv  much  better  was  i:  to 
have  been  a  tory,  at  that  time,  than  a  whig  !  ! !  How  many  American  whigs 
loft  their  debts,  nay,  their  whole  eftates,  by  the  operation  of  thole  very  laws,  which 
eventually  will  have  fecurrd  tie  debts  of  their  enemies  !  This  article,  it  is  fuppbfed, 
was  made  a  precedent  condition  to  the  admiflion  of  the  fe-ventb,  relating  to  com- 
penfation  to  be  made  for  fpoiiai ions  upon  our  commerce,  to  which  this  countcr- 
j.o'j'e  was  prrviotifly  fecured. — When  we  recollect  that  nine-tenths  of  thefe  laft> 
mentioned  claims,  on  tl.e  part  of  Britifh  creditors,  reft  upon  no  other  evidence 
than  old  mercantile  ledgers  and  journals,  often  moji  inaccurately,  and  not  always  moji 
fairly  he  ft;  that  the  commiflioners  are  not  bound  to  proceed  upon  legal  tefimony  or 
evidence,  only,  but  according  to  circumjlances  ;  that  they  may  receive  copies  or  extratts, 
even  of  books  and  papers,  without  producing  either  the  original  or  a  full  copy  ,■  that 
the  debtor,  in  thefe  cafes  (unlefs  he  be  made  a  party  defendant,  'as  in  cafe  of  a  fuit) 
will  not  appear  (even  if  called  upon,  and,  in  moft.  inftances,  cannot  be  found) 
to  conteft  the  juftice  of  the  claim  ;  and  that  there  is  an  equal  chance  that  a  ma- 
jority of  thefe  commiflioners  will  be  Brit>Jh;  there  can  be  little  reafon  to  doubt 
that  the  operation  of  this  article  will  be  fully  adequate  to  countervail  (if  I  may  be 
permitted  to  borrow  a  diplomatic  phrafefrom  another  part  of  the  treaty,!  all  the 
advantages  which  we  arc  flattered  with  the  hopes  of,  from  the  feventh  article.  Add 
to  this,  thai  every  conjecture,  refpedting  the  intended  operation  and  eflecl  of  thi* 
article,  authoriles  the  conclufion,  that  this  court  of  commiffioners  is  to  be  paramount 
to  the  conjlitulional  courts,  both  of  the  feveral  ftates,  and  of  the  federal  government ; 
that  il  HJdy  examine  matters  offict  without  the  aid  oil,  jury;  and  may  re-examine 
matters  of  fail  tried  by  a  jary,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law,  and  centra- 
rji  to  the  t-u  Hftli  article  of  the  ratified  amtnJmtnti  to  the  mnflitutioB. 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c.  287 

the  trial  of  matters  of  fact  put  in  iflue  muft  there  be  by  a 
Jury.  Again,  the  United  States  undertake  to  caufe  the  money 
awarded  to  be  paid.  How  ?  By  procefs  of  execution  againft  the 
defendant's  body  or  eilate  ?  Or,  out  of  the  treafury  of  the 
United  States,  trufti.ng  for  reimburfement  to  the  alignment 
from  the  creditor?  How  are  they  to  recover  in  virtue  of  this 
affignment?  By  harraffing  the  debtor  with  a  new  fuit,  or  is  lie 
bound  to  all  intents  and  purpofes  by  the  award  of  the  Commif- 
fioners  ?  Thefe  things  are  difficult  to  be  undenlood,  and  (till 
more  difficult  to  reconcile  to  that  claufe  cf  the  conltitution, 
which  declares  that  the  judiciary  power  of  the  United  States 
fhall  be  ve/led  in  one  fupretne  court,  and  fuch  inferior  courts  as 
congrefs  may,  from  time  to  time,  eflablifj ;  that  the  judges  fhall 
hold  their  offices  during  good  behaviour ;  that  they  fhall  take  an 
oath  tofupport  the  conltitution  of  the  United  States;  ami  that 
the  j'urifdiction  of  thefe  courts  mall  extend  to  all  cafes  in  law 
and  equity  arifing  under  the  constitution,  or  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  treaties  made,  or  which  fhall  be  made  under  their  au- 
thority. The  great  tendernefs  of  the  envoy  extraordinary  for  the 
cafe  of  Britilh  creditors,  feems  to  have  made  him  forget  that 
he  prefided  in  one  of  thofe  courts,  whofe  jurifoiction  extends 
to  all  cafes  arifing  under  treaties  ;  a  circumttance  which  can  only 
be  attributed  to  his  being  fo  much  engrofled  by  his  tieiu  office, 
as  not  only  to  forget  the  functions  and  duties  of  that  ivhich  he 
had  left  behind,   but  even  the  constitution  of  his  country. 

VII.  The  fueceeding  article  relates  to  the  compenfation  to  be 
made  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  the  fpoliations 
and  depredations  committed  on  our  commerce,  and  to  the  fub- 
jects  of  Great  Britain  for  fuch  captures  as  have  been  made 
within  the  j'urifdiction  of  the  United  States,  or  by  veflels  armed 
therein.  For  this  purpofe  a  fimilar  board  of  commiffioners, 
with  nearly  fimilar  powers,  are  to  fit  in  London,  who  are  to 
decide  the  claims  referred  to  them  according  to  juftice,  equity, 
and  the  laws  of  nations;  and  the  Britiih  government  under- 
takes to  pay  the  fum  awarded  to  the  claimants  in  fpecie,  with- 
out deduction.  But  it  would  feem  that  the  commiffioners  are 
not  to  take  cognizance  of  any  cafes,  but  fuch  wherein  adequate 
compenfation  cannot  be  noiu  aclually  obtained  in  the  ordinary 
courts  of  /if  ice  ,■  with  a  further  exception  of  fuch  cafes,  where 
the  lofles  have  been  occafioned  by  the  m.inifeft  delay ,  negligence, 
or  wilful  omiflion  of  the  claimants. 

Of  all  the  injuries  to  which  mankind  are  expofed,  thofe 
committed  on  the  high  feas  are  molt  cafily  perpetrated,  and 
moll  difficult  to  be  prevented,  or  punifhed.  The  conduct  of 
privatecrfmen  differs  in  nothing  from  that  of  pirates,  except  in 


£S&  Remakjcs  on  the  Treaty,  ccc. 

the  clrcumftance  of  obtaining  a  previous  licence  to  excrcife 
their  nefarious  practice*.  That  of  the  commanders  of  imps  of 
war  bur  too  often  partakes   more    of  the  :  of  a  h.jjhniu 

than  the  c~>urtefy  of  a  foldier  of  lion.  r.  The  fpoliationa  com- 
mitted on  the  property  of  the  citizens  of  America  by  theft  two 
claries  of  men,  rnult  have  been  often,  attended  with  circum- 
ftances  of  inconvenience  to  the  fuffcrers,  far  beyond  the  ap- 
parent amount  of  the  injury  oilered.  I  have  known  a  profitable 
voyage  defeated,  and  the  veflel  finally  loit,  by  being  plundered 
of  a  few  fail-needles,  and  twine,  to  the  value  of  lefs  than  four 
dollars.  The  detention  of  an  hour,  or  being  turned  out  of  her 
courfe  for  a  day,  may  prove  equally  fatal  to  a  merchant  fhip. 
Thefe  are  injuries  for  which  no  reparation  in  damages,  efti- 
mated  merely  according  to  the  value  of  tin:  thing  taken,  or  the 
time  of  detention,  can  make  adequate  latisfaclion  •,  acts  of 
depredation  and  violence  committed  by  perfons  unknown,  to 
whole  refnience  we  are  ilrangers,  or  whofe  refidence  is  al  too 
great  a  diitance  to  follow  them  in  hopes  of  fatisfaction,  arc  fre- 
quently fubmitred  tc,  from  defpair  of  obtaining  any  compenfa- 
tion.  Thus  it  will  happen  that  a  thoufand  inftanees  of  opprtf- 
iion  will  remain  unaioned  for,  from  the  nature  of  the  injury 
itjclf,  and  the  place  where  offered.  The  immenfe  diitance  to 
which  the  claimants  muft  repair,  to  profecute  their  claims,  whe- 
ther by  original  action,  by  appeal,  or  by  reference  to  this  board 
of  com  mi :Ii oners,  will  be  found,  in  three  cafes  out  of  four, 
an  infurmountable  obilacle  to  the  full  attainment  of  juftice. 
Hid  the  commilfioners  been  appointed  to  fit  in  any  part  of  the 
United  State?,  or  even  in  one  of  the  Welt  India  iflands,  in- 
itead  of  London,  the  probability  of  reparation  to  the  fuffei 
would  have  been  much  increafed.  Let  the  operation  of  this  ar- 
ticle be  e^er  fo  favorable  tq  the  claimants,  tiiere  mult  always 
remain  a  very  confiderable  balance  unfatisfied.  The  liberality  of 
the  United  States  in  the  cafe  of  captures  made  within  their 
junfdiclion,  &c.  feems  to  have  been  more  readily  accepted, 
than  copied  by  the  Britifh  negociator. 

VIII.  and  IX.  Article  the  eighth  relating  folely  to  the  com. 
pcnfation  to  be  made  to  the  feveral  boards  of  commilfioners,  I 
{hall  pafs  it  over  without  obfervation.  The  ninth,  however, 
deierves  no  frnall  attention — Ic  is  thereby  agreed,  that  Bri-» 
tiih  fubjects  and  American  citizens  who  now  hold  lands  in  Ame- 
nta, and  Great  Britain,  rtfpectively,  dial!  continue  to  hold  the 
fame,  and  may  grant,  fell,  or  devife  the  fame  to  whom  they 
will,  in  like  manner  as  if  they  were  natives  ;  and  that  >. either  they 
nor  their  heirs  or  affigns  (hall  be  regarded  as  aliens,  io  far  as  may 
:Cx,  the  faid  lands,  and  the  legal  remedies  incident  thereto, 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c.  289 

According  to  the  principles  laid  down  in  Calvin's  cafe  [Co. 
rep.  part  7.]  when  two  countries,  which  have  been  under  alle- 
giance to  the  fame  prince,  feparate,  all  thofe  of  either  country 
born  before  the  fepafation  takes  place,  may  hold,  or  inherit  lands 
in  that  cottfitry  from  which  they  are  thus  feparated.  Upon  thia 
principle  the  treaty  of  peace  fecured  to  the  owners  of  lands  in 
America,  being  Britifh  fubjects,  all  their  poffeilions  in  lands  at 
that  time  held  by  than.  And  the  realisable  ccnflruchcn  feemed 
to  he,  th;.t  they  fhould  have  their  whole  lives  to  difpbfe  of  them, 
or  t'  .  American  citieensj  if  they  »!;d  neither,  the  lands' 

tytiuld  be  liable  to   efcheat  at  theif  deaili,  for  defedc   of  heir?, 

efs  fame  ante- fiatus,  or  fume  American  citizen,  could  1 
blilh  e:o,  either  a.- heir,  or  devifee.  For  it  was.  held, 

that  the  common  law,  which  excludes  aliens  from  inheriting, 
not  altered)  or  intended  to  be  altered,  by  that  article.  And 
the  reaforts  for  that  opinion  were  not  without  weight  in  the 
mind';  of  thofe  who  maintained  them;  fince  they  conceived 
that  the   principle   of  eiclu  :ns  from  holding  lands  was 

founded  in  found  policy  ;  at! opting  herein  one  of  the  reafons  of 
the  common  law  ox  England*  "  thai  the  nation  might  in  time 
be  fubjetl  to  foreign  influence." — In  giving  the  moll  liberal  con- 
ftruction  to  the  treaty  of  peace,  they  did  not  apprehend  it 
was  meant  to  contravene  a  principle  fo  long  clcabiiihed  among 
their  ancdlcrs,  and  lb  generally  underftood.  As  to  acquifitions 
of  lands,  made  by  Britiih  fubjecrs,  in  America,  fince  the  peace, 
the  queition,  whether  thefe  are  within  the  reafon  of  the  cafe  of 
ante-nati,  has  not  occurred  :  whenever  it  does,  it  is  not  imnof- 
iible  that  a  distinction  may  be  taken  between  a  title  acquired 
by  difcent  or  devi/'e,  and  one  by  actual  pur  chafe,  fince  the  com- 
mune vinculum  has  been  broken.  But  the  treaty  now  under  dii- 
cuffion  hath  totally  fubverted  the  wholefome  maxims  of  the  com- 
mon law,  and  of  found  policy,  both  in  the  frond  and  the  ninth 
article,  by  virtue  of  which  the  fubjecls  oi  Great  Britain,  though 
equally  aliens  as  the  fubjecis  of  China,  may  hold  and  tranfmit 
to  their  latelt  pofterity,  "  according  to  the  nature  and  tenure  of 
their  refpeclive  ejlates  and  titles  therein,"  lands  lying  in  the 
United  .States,  "  and  held  by  them  at  pcefent." — The  fecond 
article  very  liberally  grants  to  Britilh  fttbje&'s  ail  their  ufurped 
poffcffions  in  lands  within  the  jurifdiclicn  of  the  wejtern  pofis. 
How  fat  this  undefined  term  may  extend,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
jecture, whether  one,  five,  or  fifty  miles.*  The  claim  of  ju- 
rifdiclkn,  made  by  Governor  Simcoe  lad   fummer,  extended, 

*  The  fume  gentleman  to  whom  I  am  int!  '  Contained  UP 

note  0:1  article  6,  informs  me  chit  the  ccfuou  of  territory  to  Britiju  fnl 


290  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,   &c. 

if  iftake  not,  a  good  way  within  the  limits  of  Vermont,  and 

not  !cfs  than  twenty  miles  from  his  nearefl  pod.  At  this  rate 
the  ceflion  of  foil  made  to  the  fubjects  of  Great  Britain  may 
be  very  cxtenfive,  and  if  they  have  been  granted  to  hold  by 
fealty  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  the  ninth  article  confirms 
the  tenure.*  It  does  more;  it  exempts  "their  lands  from  the 
operation  of  thofe  laws  which  would  limit  the  duration  of  ejlates, 
if  fuch  be  the  nature  of  their  eftates  therein.  It  will  be  faid 
that  this  article  is  reciprocal;  nothing  can  be  more  fallacious: 
it  is  probable  that  the  fubjects  of  Great  Britain  at  this  day  own 
ten  thoufand  times  as  much  land  in  America,  as  is  owned  by 
American  citizens  in  England.  Under  the  fanction  of  this  ar- 
ticle, though  not  within  the  ftrict  wording  of  it,  it  is  probable 
that  the  quantity  of  lands  holdsn  by  Britifh  fubje£ts  in  America 
will  be  ten  times  as  great,  in  a  few  years,  as  at  prefent,  fo  that 
America  will,  in  great  meafure,  be  tenanted  by  the  vajjals  of 
Briiifo  landlords.]-  The  high  price  of  lands  in  England  will, 
probably,  induce  many  land-holders  there  to  exchange  their 
property  for  more  extenfive  eftates  in  America ;  nor  will  there 
be  wanting  temptations  to  the  monopolizers  of  that  article  to. 
cngrofs  as  large  a  portion  of  the  foil  as  of  die  funds  of  the 
United  States.  What  influence  this  may  have  over  the  body 
politic  it  is  not  hard  to  conjecture ;  efpecially  if  his  Britannic 
majejly  himfelf,  who  is  reported  to  be  a  ccnfiderable  ftock- 
hold^r  in  the  American  funds,  fhould  feel  the  fame  inclination 
to  fpeculate  in  lands :  he  might,  probably,  in  a  few  years  en- 
grofs  fo  large  a  portion  of  them,  as  to  revive  his  claim  of  fu- 
preme  lord  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

X.  The  tenth  article  ftipulates  that  there  (hall  be  no  fe- 
qudtration  or  confifcation  of  debts,  or  property  in  the  funds, 
or  in  public  or  private  banks,  in  any  event  of  war  between  the 
two  nations. — One  of  the  reafons  upon  which  this  article  was 
probably  founded,  was  flightly  touched  upon  above — His  Bri- 
tannic majefty,  it  is  faid,    either  allured  by  the  profpe£t  of 

comprehended  in  the  fecond  article,  will  probably  amount  to  a  grant  mors; 
than  equal  to  the  fta;c9  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky,  in  extent,  and  of  the  nwll 
valuable  lands  in  the  United  States. 

*  How  far  this  article  may  tend  to  revive  the  proprietary  rights  of  Lord  Fair- 
fax's heirs  or  devifecs,  and  the  Maryland  and  Peonfylvania  proprietaries,  may 
be  worthy  of  more  confederation  than  I  have  been  able  to  bellow  upon  the  fub- 
jedt. 

■f  The  fettlement?  now  making  in  fome  parr  of  the  flate  of  New  York  by  an 
Englifh  g.  :,tlcmcn,  whofe  name,  I  thi  '-,  :':.'-  ey,  upon  an  t'late  containing 
a'lout  half  a  million  of  acres,  may  ferve  as  ^n  evidence  of  the  probability  of  this 
<onjceture. 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  Sec.  zyi 

higher  intereft,  or  alarmed  for  the  fecurity  of  his  immenfo 
property  in  the  European  banks,  has  lately  condefcended  to  In- 
come a  creditor  of  the  United  States.  The  word  fob/eels  is 
dropped  in  this  article,  and  the  more  comprehenfive  term  in- 
dividuals, is  fubflituted  for  it :  this  being  nomen  gemralijjtmum, 
may  be  fuppofed  to  extend  to  the  king  himfelf ;  for  the  rule 
that  the  king  is  not  bound  by  any  law,  unlefs  he  be  fpecially 
named  therein,  does  not  apply  to  thofe  laws  where  he  is  CO 
derive  a  benefit  from  general  words.  As  tills  article,  therefore, 
was  not  fo  much  calculated  to  bind,  as  to  benefit  him,  it  was 
unneceflary,  and  would  have  been  indecent  to  name  him  fpeci- 
ally.  His  majefty's  example  has,  there  is  great  rcafon  to  be- 
lieve, been  followed  by  a  number  of  his  fubjects — I  know  a 
gentleman  who  purchafed  half  a  million  of  dollars  in  the  three 
per  cents,  in  one  day,  for  perfons  refiding  in  London.  The 
effect  of  this  article  will  probably  be  a  confidcrable  inereafe 
of  Britijh  flockholders. 

But  this  article  deferves  further  confideration  in  another 
point  of  view.  When  Great  Britain,  in  the  courfe  of  the  late 
war,  began  to  exercife  every  a£t  of  depredation  upon  the  pro- 
perty of  the  people  of  America,  as  well  as  cruelty  upon  their 
perfons,  the  ftates,  then  fovereign  and  independent,  by  way  oil 
retaliation,  thought  proper  to  fequeiter  and  confifcate  Britii'h. 
property  in  America.*  And  when  his  Britannic  majefty's  ihips 
of  war  and  privateers,  commeneed  their  prefent  fyftcm  of 
fpoliation  and  aggreffion  on  the  commerce  of  the  citizens  ot 
America,  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives  in  congrefs,  by  a  very  large 
majority,  rcfolved  to  fequeiter  Britifli  property  in  the  United 
State?,  in  order  to  fecure  fome  indemnification  to  their  fuffer- 
ing  conttituents.  This  meafure,  as  was  formerly  mentioned, 
was  loll  in  the  fenate  by  the  cafiing  vote  of  the  vice-prefident. 
The  precedent  was  alarming,  and  might  be  renewed  when  the 
vice-prefident  might  not  hold  the  balance  in  his  own  hands.  The 
chief  juftice  of  the  United  States  had  judicially  declared  (tho* 
that  opinion  was  over-ruled)  that  the  flates  had  no  right  to 
confifcate  or  fequeiler  their  enemies'  property  j  the  envoy  ex- 
traordinary made  no  difficulty  in  giving  a  diplomatic  fanction 
to  thefe  opinions,  nor  did  he  hefitate  to  remove  all  the  horrors 
which  his  Britannic  majefty  may  be  fuppofed  to  have  felt,  on 
the  feore  of  his  money  in  the  funds  and  banks  of  tho  United 
States. If  national  juftice  were  always  adminiftered  with- 
out regard   to  the  right  of  the  firongejl,  very  far  ihould   1  be 

*  This  was  done  at  the  "  earnrji  rcccruutnJ-tiori"   of  Congrefs,  November  27, 
177;. — See  their  journals. 


2^1  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

from  condemning  an  article  intended  Co  feciire  private  proper- 
ty, and  to  confirm  private  confidence.  But,  every  ftipulation 
mat  abridges  the  exercife  of  defenfive  mea/ures  by  a  'knt 

how  repugnant  foever  fuch  meafures  may  appear  to  the  c 
nary  rules  of  juftice,  in  civil  cafes,  is,  in  fact,  the  fuSjection 
of  fuch  a  nation,  and  all  its  rights,  to  the  infolence,  injustice, 
and  rapacity  cf  the  frengcr. — If  a  ftate  of  war  between  two 
nations  will  juftify  feizing  the  property  of  their  refpe&ive  peo- 
ple, by  violence,  wherefoever  it  can  be  found,  will  not  the 
fame  caufe  juftify  us  in  indemnifying  ourfelves  at  the  expenfe 
of  our  enemy  in  any  other  mode  ?  And  if  the  relative  force 
of  the  two  nations  renders  this  irnpoffible  by  other  means,  by 
what  refinement  in  political  morality  are  we  forbidden  to  av  til 
ourfelves  of  fuch  means  of  retaliation  or  indemnification  as  the 
nature  of  things  permits  ?  Suppofe  Great  Britain  ftill  obttinate- 
ly  to  perfift  in  her  depredations  on  our  commerce,  and  detenti- 
on of  the  weft  em  polls;  fuppofe  her  to  renew  the  war  which 
flie  formerly  waged  with  fuch  fury  and  cruelty  againft  Ameri- 
ca ;  what  ac~t  of  retaliation  could  America  commit,  or  how  re- 
compenfe  herfelf  for  her  lofles,  but  by  confiscating  the  property 
of  Britifh  fubjecls,  or  by  carrying  the  war  into  Canada  ?  If  hu- 
manity were  to  decide  which  of  thefe  meafures  ought  to  be 
preferred,  fhe  would  probably  determine  very  differently  from 
the  envoy  extraordinary. — She  would  tell  us,  that  if  fatisfacti- 
on  could  be  obtained  without  the  effufion  of  human  blood,  that 
mode  fhould  be  firft  adopted,  rather  than  to  carry  havoc,  de- 
valuation, and  murder  among  a  people  whofe  only  fault  confid- 
ed in  their  being  the  fubjetls  of  our  enemy,  and  our  nearelt  neigh- 
bours.— Could  we  draw  the  lion's  teeth  and  pare  his  nails,  we 
might  treat  on  terms  of  mutual  reciprocity  and  equality  r  but 
till  this  can  be  effected,  the  ftipulation  in  this  article  muft  re- 
mind us  of  that  league  between  the  wolves  and  the  flieep, 
whereby  the  latter  furrendered  the  dogs,  their  only  defence,  as 
hoftages  to  the  former.  The  balance  of  trade,  already  too  great 
in  favor  of  Great  Britain,  will  hourly  accumulate:  and  if  Bri- 
tifh fubje£ts  can  hold  lands,  and  poffefs  property  in  our  funds 
snd  banks,  without  danger  cf  lefs,  we  may  reft  allured  that 
thefe  advantages  will  be  turned  to  their  proper  account. — The 
moment  a  man  becomes  a  debtor,  beyond  his  ability  to  pay, 
his  independence  is  totally  loft.  It  is  the  fame  with  nations 
that  are,  at  the  fame  time  weak  and  poor.  Our  commercial  in- 
tercourfe  with  Great  Britain  being  renewed  upon  the  moll 
nefieial  footing  for  her,  will  render  the  United  States,  with 
•the  aid  of  this  article,  and  'the  preceding,  a  nation  of  dibt 


Remarks  ort  the  Treaty,  Sec.  293 

\>X>ih  public  and  private,  to  her  merchants,  her  nrjnied  k.w,   her 
ambitious  land-hoiders,  and  even  to  her  fovereign  himf*lf. 

The  preceding  articles,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  ail  per- 
manent. If  once  ratified)  tney .-will  be  irrevocable ;  for  the  ad- 
vantages therebv  fecured  to  Great  Britain  are  i'o  great,  that  fhc 
mud  be  (truck  with  blindnefs,  indeed,  fhould  Ihe  ever  agree 
to  refcind  one  of  th:m. —  The  feventh,  the  only  one  which 
promifes  any  thing  for  America,  except admijjion  into  the  ive/lern 
pojls,  has  been  fhown  to  be  inadequate  to  a  full  and  complete 
indemnification  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  for  the 
injuries  they  have  fuftained.  Nor  has  Britain  yielded  aqy  thing 
in  any  one  of  them,  for  which  (he  has  not  gained  a  /////  c<u<i- 
valent  and  fomething  more. — But  though  it  requires  very  little 
ikili  in  political  arithmetic,  to  fee  on  which  fide  the  balance  lies, 
it  may  require  ages  to  calculate  the  amount. 

XI.  and  XII.  Though  no  temporary  advantage  can  ever  be 
deemed  an  equivalent  for  permanent  disadvantages,  fuch  as  we. 
have  juft  noticed,  it  might  have  been  reafonably  expected  that 
the  fucceeding  articles  of  the  treaty  would  have  procured  fome 
recompence  to  the  United  States  for  fuch  important  cone  '(lions. 
It  is,  however,  doubtful  whether  any  one  of  the  remaining  ar- 
ticles (tipulates  for  a  (ingle  advantage  on  our  behalf,  for  which 
we  do  not  facrifi.ee  thrice  as  much  as  it  is  worth. —  The  eleventh 
article  (tipulates  "that  there  (hall  be  reciprocal  and  entire  per- 
fect liberty  of  navigation  and  commerce  under  certain  limitati- 
ons and  reftrictions,"  not  one  of  which  is  either  a  limitation  or 
reduction  upon  Great  Britain,  but  altogether  upon  the  United 
States.  For  example — (hips  of  any  burden,  belonging  to  Bri- 
tain, may  freely  enter  any  of  the  ports  of  the  United  States, 
and  bring  or  carry  away  any  commodities  they  pleafe,  and  whi- 
ther they  pleafe  ;  whtllt  the  freedom  of  navigation  and  com- 
merce, by  American  citizens,  is  re  (tricked  to  veffels  not  exceed- 
ing  feventy  tons  burden,  if  bound  to  the  Britijfj  IVejl  Indies ;  all 
American  veffels  whatfoever  being  totally  excluded  from  the 
Britiih  fea-ports  on  the  continent,  by  the  third  article  already 
mentioned.  This  licenfe  to  trade  with  the  Britiih  Iflands,  is  by 
lb  me  perfons  reprefented  as  very  import)  at,  even  under  this 
redaction.  From  the  nature  of  the  cafe  it  can  only  extend  to 
the  article  of  provifions,  when  they  are  not  prohibited  1  for  by 
the  laws  of  England,  neither  tobacco,  nor  any  other  production 
of  the  United  States,  except  proviftons^  lumber^  naval  w  res, 
and  horfes,  can  be  imported  into  the  illands  trorr.  the  United 
States,  even  in  Britijb  bottoms.  Veffels  of  feventy  tons  burden 
;ire  too  fmall  for  the  lumber  trade. —  The  demand  for  naval 
(Loirs  and  horfes  ...  .  tiih  iflands,  is  not  likely  to  form  any 
Vol.   .  S  s 


294  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c.' 

Very  important  branch  cf  commerce  with  them  :  the  admiffion 
or  faitcd  provifions  is  altogether  tttbitraryt  or,  if  you  plcafe, 
cretionary,  depending  upon  the  fuppliea  which  can  be  furnifh- 
ed  from  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  j  the  treaty  does  not  alter 
the  cafe  in  this  refnecl — they  may  Hill  be  admitted  or  rejected  ; 
they  have  been  often  admitted,  and  as  often  prohibited,  within 
the  lafc  ten  years;  fometiir.es  the  admiffion  lias  been  con- 
fined to  Britifh  bottoms  ;  at  others,  extended  to  all  vejjels  what- 
Jcever,  Without  limitation  as  to  their  burden.  I  appeal  to  the  re- 
peated proclamations  authorizing  the  importation  cf  pro-.' fens  in 
foreign  i:it:-ms,  which  have  appeared  in  the  gazettes  of  all  the 
iftandsj  and  of  the  United  States,  for  a  dozen  years  pad,  to 
prove  this  fa£fc.  It  is  a  moft  important  fact,  and  {hows  that  the 
e.siftence  of  the  Britifh  fugar  colonies  depends  upon  the  United 
Stares  of  America.  For  the  policy  of  Great  Britain,  ever  fince 
the  p' :'cc,  has  been  to  exclude  the  citizens  of  America  and 
their  vefli  any  lntercourfe  or  commerce  with  her  fugar 

.  colonies  ;  a  relaxation  from  this  pclicy  has  never  been  produced 
but  by  the  moft  cogent  neceffity  ;  the  frequent  repetition  of  the 
proclamations,  inviting  our  vejfels  into  their  ports,  proves  this 
cogent  neceffity  to  be  very  frequent,  alfo  ;  which  fully  authorizes 
'.'.: ';  ccnclufion,  that  thofe  colonies  could  not  befubfijled  -without  the  aid 
of  the  United  States.  This  being  the  cafe,  it  was  in  our  power  to  die- 
tale  our  oivn  terms,  inftead  of  fubmilting  to  fuoh  as  are  at  once 
-  .-ding  and  deflruclive  to  our  commercial  inter ejls. — We  (hall 
be  told  that  the  conduct  of  Britain  is  agreeable  to  the  colonial 
law  of  all  nations.  But  this  law  prefuppofes  that  the  parent 
country  is  capable  of  fupporting  her  colonies  without  the  aid  of 
any  foreign  country  whatfoevcr.  This  is  not  the  cafe  with  Great 
Britain — She  muft,  therefore,  fubmit  to  reafonatrle  terms  from 
a  nation  abounding  with  thofe  things,  without  which  h?r colonics 
cannot  cxif,  or  facrifce  I.  tr  colonics.  This  would  be  equally  un- 
wife,  inhuman,  and  unjvj}  on  her  part.  The  neceffity  ot  an  in- 
tereourfe  between  the  United  Stares  and  her  colonies  was, 
therefore,  altogether  on  her  part,  though  the  fubmiffton  and  re- 
Jiriclion  is  upon  ours,  only.  A  ciccrepid  veteran  without  any 
weapon  fdt  his  defence,  dictating  terms  of  fubmiiTion  to  a  ro- 
buft  young  fold  et  with  arms  in  his  hands,  would  fcarcely  ex- 
hibit a  ;  .aordinary  initance  of  fuceefsful  arrogance,  or 
ot  abject:  cvndeicehfion. — The  commerce  with  the  fugar  Mauds 
was  one  of  '.hole  ilrong  holds  of  negociation,  on  the  part  of 
tfee  United  Stares,  which  ought  never  to  have  been  abandoned. 
The  envoy  extraordinary  could  not  have  been  ignorant  of  this, 
of  the  fentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  that  body  to  whom, 
ill  cenjunfiiou  with  the  fenaie  and  the  prfidtitt,  it  belongs,  by  the 


Remarks  on    the  Treaty,   Sec.  295 

eonfiituiion,  tp  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations.  His  zeal 
for  uegoeiation'  ieems  to  have  made  imri  lofe  fight  pfevery  ol 
I:  and  no  doubt,  from  >  ejcpes&tipn  with  winch  1 
important  treaty  was  concluded,  every  pbftacle,  which  mi 
for  a  moment  retard  its  completion,  was  inii  mtiy  waved  on 
fide  ol"  the  American  negotiator. 

Not    lefs  extraordinary  is    the  ftipuhtion   contained   in  the 
fuccecding  ciaufe    of  the   fame    article,    iw.hich    declares,   | 
during  the   continuance   thereof}   the   United  .States   will  pror 
hibit  and  retrain  tl;e  carrying  any  vic',:/^j,  ccffeey   coco::,  .  t  .   /- 
/'■n,  in  American  vcff.'ls,  either  her.  :v  ,./,,/..,   or 

United   Suites,  to   any  part   of  the   \\^\<-'-  I    the  U;; 

States.  Never  was  a  more  humiliating  conceiTiQQ  prop-.;  d  or 
acceded  to,    in  a  commercial  treaty.     The  intcrd; 
not  only     10  the   produce    ui   the  .Euglifh   iugar  ill?  ftp 

fimilar  productions  from  any  other  part  oi  the  gir.be.  TJjjs  was  a 
decided  itrolec  at  the  oornmttrce  between  America  and  the  poi- 
Xefaons  of  every  other  nation  in  the  Welt  Indies,  whether 
French,  Dutch,  Spanifh,  Daniih,  ©r  Sw.ecUlb  !  Britain  i'V.jt- 
•pofing  the  produce  of  her  iflands  fuffiuent  for  the  confumpti- 
on  of  the  United  Slates,  or  rather,  determining,  if 
to  limit  their  confumption  to  what  her  iiiands  can  fjjpj 
thusfecures  a  monopoly  by  iiucrdieTng  \)ic  expQrl  any 

furplus  of  their  productions,   or   fio  Tel  ions 

countries;   and  moreover,    lays   a    foundation  fpr   the 
/catching  all   our  veffels,   a:ui,   upon   the 
uining  or  carrying  them   into  her  own  peris  for 
if  it  fhould  appear  that   they  ha"e  on  board    any  oi  thefe    .T- 
cles  beyond  reafonable  fea-flores.  Surely   by  lorne   ftramje   %  Feet 
of  magic,  the   envoy   extraordinary  had    ioit    alj    memory  0/ 
.events  fubfequent   to  the    year    1763,  and    conceived  bvnafeW 
bound  to  receive  as  law,  whatever  the  Britifh  fecreiaiy  0.  iia'.e 
was  pheifed   to  dictate  to  him  !   Or  was  this  conce'.h   n  I 
fult  of  his  fears  for  the  fate  of  the  French  colonies,  that 
would  cither  be  defolated,  or  become  an  appendage   to  G 
Britain  ?  Or  did  he  conceive  that  fuch  a  njlriclcd  commerc 
lie  has  ftipulated   far  with   the    Britain    colonies,  clogged  iuu/j 
refriclions  upon  cur  commerce  ivith  oil  ether  parts  of  the  globey 
was  more  valuable  thin  all  our  .Veil  India  trade  put  together? 
Surely  the  productions  of  thofe  iilands  mull  have  been  re: 
cd    precious  beyond   meafure  in   the  (  . .  •  oi   the  envoy  extraor- 
dinary  when  he  con  feu-ted  to  this  article  ! 

There  is  yet  another  light  in  which  this  article  inuft  be 
placed,  to  give  us  a  full  view  of  its  merits.  Covgtvfs,  that  is, 
the  botifc  of  repr.efentatives  and  fc{iatet  \v:<h  the  concur  re  ace  of 


296  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,   &c. 

the  prejident  of  the  United  States,  are  the  conflitutional  organs 
for  the  regulation  of  commerce.  Here,  the  envoy  extraordina- 
ry undertakes  to  regulate  it  by  means  of  the  prejident  and 
filiate,  only,  without  reference  to  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives  ; 
thu<  taking  upon  himfelf  to  ?ieiv-model  the  conflitution,  or  to 
dictate  a  law  to  congrefs.  For  either  the  prefulent  and  fenate 
mult  regulate  commerce,  purfuant  to  this  article,  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  houfe  of  reprefentatives,  or  that  houfe  is 
bound,  nolens  •volens,  to  pafs  a  law  purfuant  to  ibis  article. 
Whether  that  houfe  will  manifefl  the  fame  compliance  with 
the  opinions  of  the  envoy  extraordinary,  as  he  apears  to  have 
Ihown  to  thofe  of  the  Britifh  fecretary  of  ftate,  remains  to  be 
leen  hereafter. 

XIII.  Weary  of  conceffions  without  confideration — of  com- 
pliances without  oftenfible  motives — and  of  humiliations  too 
degrading  even  for  colonies,  I  turn  my  eyes  towards  that  gleam 
of  iberality  which  appears,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  in 
the  13th  arricie,  by  which  fome  conveniencies  have  been  pro- 
cured for  cur  citizens  trading  to  the  Eaft  Indies.  Yet  even  here, 
reitnetiens  evince  the  jealoufy  of  that  nation;  no  American. 
citizen  being  permit:^  J  to  refide  in  any  of  her  territories  in  that 
quarter  of  the  globe,  in  which  (he  has  acquired  fo  extenfive  an 
influence  j   whillt  Britifh  fubjeBs  may  be  lords  of  manors  in  the 

ed  Stares  from  generation  to  generation.  The  15th  arti- 
cle: expn  :.-.  xrving  to  the  Britifh  government"  the  right 
oi  impofing  inch  a  duty  as  may  be  adequate  to  countervail  the 
jrence  of  duty  now  payable  on  the  importation  of  European 
and  Afiatic  goods  when  imported  into  the  United  States  in  Bri- 
tifh or  in  American  veflels,"  has,  in  truth,  frittered  away  the 
commercial  advantages  to  have  been  expected  from  this  article, 
to  nothing  more  than  a  grant  of  the  ordinary  rights  of  hofpitality. 

XIV.  and  XV.  The  14th  article,  relating  wholly  to  the  in- 
tercourfe  between  the  Britifh  European  territories,  and  the 
United  States,  reciprocally,  fecures  thofe  rights  whieh  are 
common  between  civilized  nations  in  peace.  But  the  15th  ar- 
ticle virtually  extends  to  Great  Britain  all  the  commercial  ad- 
vantages granted  by  America  to  the  moft  favored  nations.  The 
favors  of  the  United  States,  like  thofe  of  a  lady  of  pleafure, 
have  been  granted  to  fo  many,  as  to  be  from  henceforth  beneath 
the  folicitation  of  any. — The  firfl  grant  of  them  to  France 
gained  a  cordial  return  of  affection  :  The  laft  grant  will  pro- 
bably annihilate  the  recollection,  as  well  as  the  value,  of  the 
firft.  To  detach  the  United  States  from  the  affectionate  at- 
tachment to  that  nation,  which  gratitude  and  a  variety  of  con- 
current caufes  had  produced,  as  it  has  been  the  conftant  defirq. 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  ice.  297 

of  Great  Britain,  was,  unqueftionably,  one  of  the  great  ob- 
jects of  the  prefent  treaty,  as  we  ilialJ  have  occafion  to  obferve 
hereafter. 

XVI.  and  XVIL  The  former  of  thefe  articles  relating  only 
to  the  appointment  of  confuls,  I  (hall  pafs  it  over.  The  latter 
ilipulates,  that  veffels  captured  or  detained  on  jult  fufpicion  of 
having  on  board  enemy's  property,  or  contraband  goods,  (hall 
be  brought  to  the  ne.ireft,  or  mojl  convenient  port  for  adjudica- 
tion. The  alternative  leaves  to  the  captor  the  right  of  determin- 
ing between  the  nearejl  and  the  mojl  convenient  port ;  and  the 
latter  will,  in  all  cafes,  be  determined  by  the  convenience  cf  the 
captor,  inftead  of  the  party  arretted.  It  fanctions  the  right  of 
<  flopping)  fearching,  detaining,  and  carrying  out  of  the  courje  of  her 
voyage,  any  veilel  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
during  ami  war  that  Britain  may  be  engaged  in;  that  is,  upon 
neral  average,  about  one  half  her  time  and  ours.  It  might 
have  been  expe&ed  that  the  envoy  extraordinary  in  his  great 
ambition  to  meliorate  the  laws  and  utages  of  nations,  would 
have  infilled,  that  free  /hips  Jhould  make  free  goods;  that  the 
commerce  of  a  neutral  nation  fhould  not  be  interrupted  by  thofe  at 
War,  e.\ci.pt  in  the  cafe  of  contraband  good  carrying  to  an  ene- 
n;y  ;  that  no  fcarch  Jhould  be  permitted  upon  the  high  feas,  under 
any  pretext  whatsoever;  that  no  fnp  of  war,  or  privateer 
fhould  approach  ivithtn  cannon  foot ;  nor  chace  nor  turn  any  neu- 
tral veflei  out  of  her  courfe  ;  nor  fend  more  than  two  or  three 
men  to  enter  on  board  of  her;  and  that  full  faith  and  credence 
fhould  be  given  ;o  the  fea  letters  with  which  fueh  veffels  might 
be  fumifhed.  Examples  of  fimilar  Itipulations  might  be  found  in 
our  treaties  with  I1  ranee,  Holland,  Sweden,  and  Pruffia ,•  and 
even  his  majejly  of  Morocco  has  condefcended  to  infert  fome  of 
them  in  his  treaty  with  us.  But  his  Britannic  majefty's  fhips  of 
war  and  privateers  are  not  to  be  refirained  from  any  meafures 
which  their  fufptcions  may  lead  them  to  purfue,  if  they  "forbear 
doing  any  damage  or  committing  any  outrage  •"  words  of  fuch 
latitude  ol  import,  as  to  fanclify  a  thoufand  injuries  and  pro- 
vocations, fuch  as  were  touched  upon  under  the  feventh  article, 
for  which  no  compenfation  can  ever  be  obtained  ;  or  even  ex- 
peeled,  without  purfuing  the  ofTender  half  over  the  globe. 
Upon  what  ground,  we  may  afk,  was  this  diflin£tion  made? 
Are  the  officers  and  crews  of  his  Britannic  majefty's  fhips  of 
war  and  privateers  fo  remarkably  obiervant  of  the  rights  of  neu- 
tral nations,  and  the  laws  of  courtefy,  that  we  fhould  trult 
them  more  than  any  others?  The  envoy  extraordinary  muft: 
furely  have  forgot,  that  to  put  a  Hop  to  their  infolence  and  rapa- 
«>.';  was  one  of  the  moll  important  objects  of  his  million. 


298  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

XVIII.  Conceffion  following  conceffion  fills  up  almoft  the 
•  tl  :t  !(_  n  ..ins  to  he  conliiLred  of  this  ill-favored  treaty. 
Ship-timber,  tar,  hemp,  fails,  fjcct-coppcr,  and  generally  il. 
fver  ;}  ;<y  ferve  directly  for  the  equipment  of  vejjjels,  un  wrought 
iron  and  fir  plank  excepted,  are  by  this  article  added  to  the  liit 
of  contraband  good?,  though  exprefly  excepted  by, former  trea- 
ties with  other  nations.  Upon  what  principle  was  this  new  con- 
o.dfion  made  to  Great  Britain,  in  preference  to  all  other  nati- 
ons ?  Was  it,  becaufe  thefe  articles  are  deemed  of  the  fir  ft  ne- 
•y  to  France  during  the  prefent  war  ?  Did  the  envoy  extra- 
ordinary recoiled:  that  molt  of  thefe  are  flciple  commodities  of 
the  United  Slates?  That  to  make. them  contraband  amounts  to 
an  aclurJ  prohibition  cf  the  exportation  of  them  in  cur  own  veffls, 
whenever  Great  Britain  choofes  to  go  to  war  ?  Will  not  die 
powers  at  war  with  Great  Britain,  challenge  an  equal  right  to 
confhler  thefe  articles  as  contraband,  and  feize  and  confiscate 
them  in  their  turn,  if  deftined  for  our  new,  favorite  ally? 

The  fame  article  admits,  that  proviuons  and  other  articles  in 
general  not  contraband,  may,  in  certain  cafes,  become  contra- 
band, according  to  the  exiitmg  law  of  nations  Until  the  prc: 
icnt  war  with  France,  the  right  of  interdicting  commerce  be- 
tween a  neutral  nation  and  an  enemy,  was,  by  the  modern  /aw 
cf  nations  (a  term  for  which  the  envoy  extraordinary  in  \\\$  judi- 
cial capacity  always  affected  great  refpect)  confined  to  the  fingle 
cafe  of  a  place  befteged,  or  blockaded*  True  it  is,  that  England, 
and  the  United  provinces,  Something  more  than  a  century  ago, 
agreed  to  notify  to  all  ftates,  net  at  war  with  France,  that  they 
would  attack,  and  previoufly  declared  every  fhip  bound  to,  or  com- 
ing out  of  the  harbours  of  ihai  kingdom,  lawful  prize.  This  prece- 
dent was  copied  by  the  enemies  of  France  in  the  prefent  war. 
Sweden  and  Dmmarh,  on  tiie  former  occafion,  as  well  as  on  the  lat- 
ter, entered  into  a  treaty  for  maintaining  their  rights,  and  obtain- 
ing fat'tsfa&hn,  and  the)  obtained it  accordingly  on  both  occafions.  A- 
merica,  on  the  contrary,  kifTes  the  rod,  and  crouches  beneath  the 
lafh  of  the  infolent  di<5tat<efs  of  nations.  The. effect  of  this 
fubmiffion  will  probably  amount  to  a  total  prohibition  of  the 
trade  of  America,  with  all  nations  aeainft  whom  Great  Brnniu 
is  engaged  in  a  war.  There  is  not  in  all  Europe,  and  fcarcely 
in  the  world,  a  country  i\>  little  capable  of  being  put  into  a 
ftate  of  ficge,  or  blockade,  as    France.  Yet  we   have   feen  her 

*  The  rights  of  neutral  nation?  in  refined  to  their  commerce,  and  the  fenfc 
that    our  govo n-estt   e|  rs  ago,  are  admirah  y  fhovn, 

in  a  letter  from    Wr.  .   |  ate,  to  Mr.   Piackney  our 

then  minifter  at  tl  '-ember  7,  1793.     See  the 

papers  accompanying  the  prescient  oi  December  5, 1793,  page  1  • 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,   &e.  290 

formally  declared  to  be  in  that  (late  ;  we  have,  in  confequence, 
feen  our  commerce  with  her  prohibited,  our  vefTeis  lazed, 
their  cargoes  converted  to  the  ufe  of  the  captors;  and  our  en- 
voy extraordinary  has  given  Ins  fandticn  to  all  thefe  proceed- 
ings ;  ftipulating  only,  that  in  future  cafes,  a  t  mercan* 
tile  profit  (of  which  the  owner  has  no  right  to  ju  !J  be 
allowed  for  the  cargoes  thus  diverted  from  that  channel,  which 
the  profpeel  of  a  beneficial  voyage  had  induced  the  merchant: 
to  purfue  ;  and  that  the  vefTeis  ihaii  be  paid  theii  freight,  Even 
the  governors  of  the  little  "Weil  India  lilands  belonging  to 
Great  Britain,  aflume  the  right  of  cireumfcribing,  and  prohi- 
biting the  commerce  of  America,  by  declaring  all  the  Freagh 
iilands,  in  a  (late  of  blockade,  whilft  they  have  not  force  enough 
to  protect  their  own  govern menis.*  How  degraded  K 
nation  be,  whole  commerce  may  be  interdicted  by  the  procla- 
mation of  a  colonial  governor,  or  a  military  commander  in  the 
fcrvice  of  a  foreign  nation  ! 

XIX.  The  nineteenth  article  ftipulates,  that  the  comr;.- 
of  (hips  of  war  and  privateers  (hall  forbear  doing  damage,  or 
committing  any  outrage  on  thofe  of  the  other  party  ;  and  if 
they  act  contrary,  they  (hall  be  punifhed  and  make  reparation. 
I  have  before  noticed  the  probable  effect  of  this  flipuiation )  k 
may  prevent  fome  fenv  enormcus  :nj;:;us,  bat  will  not  in  |he 
leatt  check  Iftffer  abufes.  That  infolencej  and  thofe  lefs  atroci- 
ous acts  ot  vexation  and  opprelhon,   which    the  bafbaws  of  the 

1,  and  thofe  licenfed  pirates,  privateerfajti*  are  fo  prone  to 
commit,  will  (till  continue  to  be  exercifed  with  all  the  wanton- 
nefs  of  eonfeious  fecurity,  and  impunity*  A  cruifer  belonging 
to  one  of  the  Britifli  iflandfr,  ftops  a  (hip  bound  to  Europe; 
Searches  her;  rifles  her;  infults  the  captain;  abufes  his  tea- 
men ;  impreffes  fome  of  them,  under  pretext  that  they  are  Bri- 
tilh  fubjecls ;  and  after  all  thefe  atrocities,  permits  the  ihip  to 
proceed.  What  fatisfaction  can  be  obtained  in  fuch  a  Cafe  ? 
Shall  the  mafter  of  the  merchant  Blip  alter  his  voyage,  and  go 
to  the  port  to  which  the  privateer  belongs,  to  obtain  reparation  ? 
The  idea  is  abfurd.  He  mult  fubmit  to  the  ill  treatment  he  has 
received,  and  confider  his  deliverance  from  the  hands  of  fuch 
ruffians,  as  ample  recompense  for  bis  fufferings.  Had  the  en- 
voy extraordinary  cdndefcended  to  look  into  our  treaty  with 
France,   or  Holland,   he  might  I  tnd     fl  •   li  '..tional  article-, 

more   effectually   calculated  to  give  fecurity   to  commerce,  as 

*  And  fuch  a  proclamation,  ns  appears  by  a  late  cafe,  has  been  confidered  by 
the  court  of  delegates  in  England,  upon  an  a;  pe;  1  fronS  Bermuda,  to  be  a  fuffi- 
cient  ground  to  reh&Vr  a  tejfcl  liable,  in  and 

her  paffage  almoft  firiifticd,  before 


3co  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

well  as  to  the  pcrfons  of  thofe  engaged  in  porfuit  of  it,  by  pro- 
viding) '*  That  if  the  iliips  of  one  of  the  parties  (hall  be  met 
with,  cither  failing  along  the  coafls,  or  on  the  high  feas,  by 
any  Chip  of  war  or  privateer  of  the  other,  the  faid  (hips  of 
war  or  privateers^  for  the  avoiding  any  difordcr,y7W/  remain  out 
of  canmnfljot,  from  the  merchant  fhip  ;  but  may  fend  a  boat  on 
board  and  may  enter  her,  to  the  number  of  two  or  three  men  only, 
to  whom  the  mailer  (hall  exhibit  his  paffport ;  and  thereupon  the 
merchant  (hip  may  purfue  her  voyage,  fo  as  it  fhall  not  be  law- 
ful to  rnoleft,  or  fear xh  her  in  any  manner,  or  to  give  her  chare, 
or  to  force  her  to  quit  her  intended  courfe."  One  fuch  article 
Was  worth  a  thoufand,  (Updating  for  indemnification  from  ro- 
vers,  or  the  punifhment  of  rafcals  whofe  vagrant  life  effectually 
fcreens  them  from  the  purfuit  of  juflice.  Why  then  was  fuch 
an  article  omitted  in  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  ?  We  mull 
feek  the  caufe  in  that  fpirit  of  conceflion  and  fubmiffion, 
which  breathes  through  every  article  of  this  coup  d'efiai  of  the 
envoy  extraordinary. 

XX.  The  reciprocal  exclufion  of  pirates,  and  punifhment  of 
fuch  as  may  receive,  harbour,  or  a  (fill  them,  for  which  this 
article  (lipulates,  is  among  the  few  unexceptionable  articles  of 
this  treaty. 

XXI.  How  far  the  firfl  part  of  this  article,  prohibiting  the 
people  of  either  partv  from  accepting  commiflions  from  the  ene- 
mies of  the  other,  may  be  contrary  to  found  policy,  I  will  not 
undertake  to  decide.  I  rather  incline  to  the  oppolite  opinion; 
yet  I  entertain  fome  doubt  of  its  conftitutionality,  in  one  re- 
ipecl:.  The  prohibition  as  _to  .privateers  correlponds  with  our 
treaties  with  other  nations ;  anil  it  is  mod  devoutly  to  be' 
wifhed,  that  the  civilized  nations  of  the  globe  would  agree  to 
fupprefs  fo  infamous  a  practice,  as  that  of  privateering,  alto- 
gether; had  the  envoy  extraordinary  introduced  fuch  a  claufe 
into  his  new  diplomatic  code,  it  would  have  done  him  no  lefs 
honor  than  he  expected  to  derive  from  the  fuppreffion  of  con- 
fifcations,  and  fequeflrations. 

XXII.  Another  article  ftipulating  for  due  forbearance  from 
reprifals,  in  cafe  of  injuries,  forms  a  proper  article  in  a  treaty 
of  amity — but  alar. !  what  reprifals  has  the  envoy  extraordi- 
nary left  it  in  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  commit, 
in  cafe  of  injuries  from  Great  Britain,  even  after  compenfarion 
fhall  be  rcfufed  ! 

XXIII.  Secures  the  rights  of  hofpitally  to  Britifh  (hips  of 
war,  in  all  cafes,  in  American  ports,  as  alfo  to  American  /Jjtps  of 
war  (when  fuch  things  (hall  hereafter  exift)  in  Britifh  ports  ;  the 
fame  hofpitality  is,  in  cafe  ofdijlrefs,  extended  to  any  America* 


&EMABKS    ON    tkE   TrEATY,    &C.  30! 

VelTel,  in  Britifb  ports  nor  other  wife  open  to  them,  under  cer- 
tain regulations  and  restrictions. 

XXIV.  and  XXV.  The  former  prohibits  privateers  belong- 
ing to  an  enemy  of  either  party,  from  arming  themfelves,  or 
felling  their  prizes  in  the  ports  of  the  other.  This  is  conform- 
able to  our  treaties  with  other  nations  ;  the  latter  ftipulates  for 
the  admifiion  of  (hips  of  war,  privateers,  and  their  prlz  :8j 
into  the  ports  of  the  refpeclive  nations ;  but  thefe  articles  are  not 
to  be  conftrued,  or  operate  contrary  to  former  exifting  treaties. 
Similar  provisions  are  contained  in  our  treaties  with  France, 
Holland,  &c.  It  feems  to  me,  however,  to  be  very  queftiona- 
ble,  whether  good  policy  would  not  father  have  led  the  United 
States  to  difcountenance,  as  much  as  pofhble,  the  practice  of 
privateers,  at  leall,  reforting  to  their  ports  in  any  cafe,  but 
that  of  ab folate  dijlrefs.  The  practice  of  privateering  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  rights  of  humanity,  and  is  pregnant  with  the  de- 
finition of  every  moral  principle  among  individuals'.  The  de- 
predations committed  by  thefe  licenfed  pirates,  have  no  effect 
upon  the  final  iiTue  of  the  war:  they  are  attended  with  ruin 
and  diftrefs  to  thoufands  of  innocent  individuals,  without  af- 
fecting the  ltreugth  of  the  nation  ;  and  the  calamities  they 
biing  upon  peaceable  and  harmlefs  men,  are  often  more  nu- 
merous and  destructive,  than  any  of  the  national  operations  in 
war.  If  they  arc  admitted  ioto  the  ports  of  neutral  nations, 
their  prefence  is  a  restraint  upon  its  commerce  \  for  it  is  well 
known  that  the  purpofe  of  their  vific,  is  to  act  the  fpy  upon 
their  intended  prey  ;  for  which  they  often  lie  in  wart  even  at 
the  entrance  of  the  port  where  they  have  been  hofpitably  re- 
ceived, and  fupplied  with  the  means  of  purfuing  fo  nefarious 
an  occupation. 

The  fame  article  alfo  ftipulates  for  the  protection  of  the  fliip3 
of  each  party  within  cannon  (hot  of  the  coaits,  or  within  the 
bays,  rivers,  or-  ports  of  the  other.  This  article  is  conforma- 
ble to  former  teaties  ;  yet  I  doubt  how  far  the  United  States  can 
otherwife  comply  with  it,  than  by  making  fatisfaetion  for  what 
they  have  no  power  to  prevent. 

XXVI.  This  article  ftipulates  for  the  fecurity  of  the  perfons 
and  eilects  of  merchants,  in  the  event  of  war  between  the  two 
nations  \  in  which  cafe,  while  they  behave  peaceabh  ,  and  com- 
mit no  oifence  againft  the  laws,  they  may  continue  to  reticle  and 
carry  on  their  trade  ;  bur  if  their  conduct  lhould  render  them  \\\{- 
pected,  and  the  respective  governments  lhould  think  proper  to 
order  them  to  remove,  they  thall  be  allowed  twelve  months  to 
do  fo,  with  an  exception,  as  to  fuch  as  (hail  act  contrary  to  the 
eitabliihed  !awj.   There   is  a  fpirit  of  liberality  in    this   article, 

Vol.  Ill,  T  t 


302  Remarks  on   the  Treaty,  &c. 

highly  conformable  to  that  policy  which  commercial  nations 
ought  to  promote.  It  is,  moreover,  in  appearance,  perfectly 
reciprocal.  The  misfortune  is,  that  America  has  fcarcely  a 
merchant  refiding  within  the  Britifh  dominions,  being  excluded 
from  all  her  colonial  territories,  by  Hat.  12.  Car.  2.  and  from 
the  Eaft  Indies  by  the  prefent  treaty;  whilft  out  ports,  our 
tctvhSf  nay,  every  part  of  our  country,  fwarms  with  Britifh 
merchants.  The  benefit  of  this  article  to  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  in  comparison  of  thofe  of  Great  Britain,  is  a9 
a  cent  to  an  eagle. 

XXVII.  Murderers,  and  perfons  guilty  of  forgery,  are  to  . 
be  given  up,  on  both  fides.  The  prevention  of  moral  evil  is  an 
object  worthy  the  attention  of  politicians,  as  well  in  their  na- 
tional compacts,  as  in  their  civil  inftitutions.  This  article, 
therefore,  if  it  can  be  reconciled  to  the  federal  conltitution, 
which  is  doubtful,  muft  receive  our  cordial  approbation,  and 
together  with  the  20th  and  21ft,  may  be  confidered  as  founded 
in  perfect  reciprocity  and  equality.  Happy  fhould  I  have  been  to 
bellow  the  fame  encomium  upon  oil  the  preceding. 

XXVIII.  The  laft  article  provides  for  the  duration  of  the. 
former  :  the  firit  ten,  as  we  have  before  obferved,  are  perma- 
nent; the  twelfth  is  to  continue  two  years  from  the  end  of  the 
war,  in  which  Britain  13  now  engaged;  the  remainder  are  limited 
to  twelve  years  from,  that  period.  Happily  for  the  United  States, 
the  article  limited  to  the  fhorteft  duration,  proved  a  (tumbling 
block  to  the  ratification  of  the  whole.  Should  the  prefident  of 
tin  United  &a  c;;  conceive  himfclf  to  be  bound  by  the  act  of 
the:  fenate,  it  has  been  fuppoied  to  be  in  the  power  of  his  Bri- 
tannic majelty  to  ratify  the  perpetual  articles,  without  acceding 
to  any  amendment  of  the  article  objected  to.  Whether  this 
was  forcieen  cannot  be  known.  It  is,  however,  presumable  that 
tl.  .  ii'i -m  of  the  prefident  will  guard  him  againft  any  act 
which  might  commit  the  United  States  fo  far.  Whilft  any  arti- 
cle of  a  tjeaty  is  under  difcuilion,  the  w/W^  muft  be  confidered 
as  in  a  fhite  of  negociation  and  difcuilion;  and  for  this  reafon, 
becaufe  it  is  poffible  the  object  of  the  one  party  in  acceding  to  all 
the  other  articles,  was  merely  with  a  view  of  obtaining  fuch 
terms,  as  are  in  lifted  on  in  that  one  article.  Viewing  the  fubject 
jn  this  light,  and  that  it  is  Hill  practicable,  in  the  courie  of 
negociation,  not  only  to  obtain  the  refcillion  of  feme,  but  the 
amelioration  of  feveral  of  thofe  articles  which  the  zeal  of  the 
envoy  extraordinary  prompted  him  to  accede  to :  and,  more- 
over, to  procure  the  admifnon  of  fuch  as  appear  to  be  indilpen- 
frbly  nec.-ir.iry  to  conftitute  a  part  of  the  propofed  treaty;  and 
that  the  fenate  mult  again  ud  upon  the  whole  treaty  fo  formed, 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c.  303 

I  fliall  notice  fome  things  which  it  does  not  contain  :  and  which, 
to  a  lefs  liberal  negociator,  might  have  appeared,  not  altogether 
unworthy  of  attention. 

1.  It  does  not  contain  any  (lipulaticn  for  compcnfation  on  ac- 
count of  the  detention  of  the  weltem  pofts,  twelve  years  after 
they  were  to  have  been  given  up,  by  treaty.  I  have  heard  that 
the  value  of  the  fur  trade  formerly  carried  on  by  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  amounted  yearly  to  near  a  million  dollars* 
The  Britifh  magazines,  fome  few  years  paft,  itated  the  value  of 
the  Canadian  fur  trade  at  as  many  pounds  fterlin^.  I  cannot 
prefume  to  be  correct  in  this,  as  I  write  from  memory.  But  if 
cither  fum  be  near  the  truth,  tins  article  would  have  amounted 
to  fome  millions  of  dollars,  in  account  againjl  his  Britannic  ma- 

2.  It  does  not  contain  any  flipulation  of  compcnfation  on  ac- 
count of  the  negroes,  and  other  property  belonging  to  the  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  carried  away  in  violation  of  the 
feveuth  article  of  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  value  of  this  con- 
ceffion  (I  know  not  with  what  accuracy)  has  been  eftimated  at 
two  millions  of  dollars,*  more,  in  favor  of  his  Britannic  ma- 
jeay. 

3.  It  does  not  Jlipulate  for  any  compenfation  to  be  made  to  the 
citizens  of  the  United  State's,  for  the  arbitrary,  violent,  and 
infolent  detention,  imprifonment,  and  imprefpnent  of  their  perjons 
(while  peaceably  engaged  in  commerce)  on  board  the  fhips  of 
war,  and  privateers  of  Great  Britain,  during  the  prefent  war 
with  France  ;  nor  for  the  manifold  other  perfonal  injuries  re- 
ceived from  them.  Were  this  article  to  be  eftimated  and  affefled 
by  a  jury  of  freemen,  fuch,  as  to  the  honor  of  the  Britifh  na- 
tion, have  often  appeared  in  their  courts  of  judicature,  the  da- 
mages would  probably  be  more  than  commenfurate  to  thofe 
which   may  be  awarded  for  the  fpoliations  on  our  commerce. 

4.  It  does  not  provide  for  the  prevention  of  fuch  nefarious  acls 
in  future.  Whillt  Americans  fpeak  the  fame  language  with  the 
fubjecls  of  Great  Britain,  there  will  not  be  wanting  a  colour 
for  fuch  a£ts  of  violence  and  oppreffion.  Our  treaty  with  Hol- 
land (tipulates,  '*  that  merchants,  captains  and  commanders  of 
vejj'els,  public  or  private,  may  freely  take  into  their  fervice,  and 
receive  on  board  their  vejfils,  feanien  or  others,  natives  or  inhabi- 
tants of  the  refpe&ive  countries."  The  conceffions  made  to 
Great  Britain  would  furely  have  entitled  us  to  expect  ;.  fimilar 


*   I  have  lately  been  informed,    that   this  eftitnate,    independent   of  twelve 
years  intereft,  is  too  low.  My  authority  add*,  that  this  article,  after 
on,  was  entirely  given  up,  hy  the  envoy  txtrapr(Una>-y  !  !  ! 


304  Remarks  on   the  Treatt,  &c. 

claufe  in  the  treaty  with  her — At  any  rate,  fome  Stipulation 
which  might  fecure  the  citizens  of  America,  whether  on  the 
high  feas,  or  on  our  coaSts,  and  even  within  our  own  bays  and 
ports,  that  per/anal  liberty  which  hath  been  fo  often  violated, 
with  impunity,  by  Britifh  fea  officers  and  privateerfmen,  during 
the  preSent  war  between  his  Britannic  majefty  and  France, 
Seems  absolutely  neceflary;  otherwifc  the  citizens  of  America 
will,  by  their  fiffe rings,  be  made  parties  in  every  war  in  which 
arrogance,  ambition,  revenge,  or  other  motives,  may  prompt  his 
Britannic  majefty  to  engage. 

5.  It  does  not  Jlipulate  that  the  Indians,  inhabiting  within  the 
territory,  or  on  the  borders  of  the  United  States,  (hall  not  re- 
ceive any  aid  or  fupply,  whatfoever,  in  arms,  or  other  necef- 
faries  for  war,  from  the  Britifh  government  or  their  merchants, 
&c.  in  cafe  of  war  or  hoftility  between  them  and  the  United 
States. 

6  It  doits  not  Jlipulate  that  Great  Britain  (inftead  of  exciting 
the  A;gerines  to  annoy  our  commerce,  and  enilave  our  citizens, 
as  we  have  too  much  reafon  to  believe  (he  has  done)  mould 
life  her  good  offices  with  ti>em  in  favor  of  the   United  iStates. 

7.  It  does  not  Jlipulate  for  the  free  navigation  from  the  lakes, 
to  the  Atlantic,  through  the  waters  immediately  communicating 
therewith. 

It  may  be  afked — What  right  have  we  to  require  that  Great 
Britain  Should  accede  to  the  three  laft  mentioned  articles  ? — 
The  anSwer  is  not  difficult: 

lit,  The  Indians  within  the  territories  of  the  United  States, 
are,  in  refpedr.  to  ait  other  nations,  but  more  efpecially  Great 
Britain,  who  formerly  claimed,  and  has  now  renounced,  the 
Sovereignty  over  them,  fubjeB  to  the  United  States.  The  Indi- 
ana themfelves,  in  thejr  feveral  treaties  wih  the  United  States, 
recognize  their  fovereignty,  and  acknowledge  themfelves  under 
their  protection.  As  between  the  United  States  and  all  other 
nations,  the  Indians  are  to  be  confidered  as  a  tributary,  depend- 
ent people.  Consequently  the  United  States  have  a  right  to  Sti- 
pulate that  other  nations  fhall  not  aid  them  againft  the  United 
S'ates.  They  had  good  reafon  to  fufpect  Great  Britain  of  having 
lately  furnifhed  them  with  fuch  aid  :  they  had  good  reafon  to  ful- 
pecl  that  the  hostilities  lately  practifed  by  thefc  people,  upon 
our  weftem  frontiers,  had  been  fomented,  nay,  even  ccnduBed 
by  the  agents  of  Great'Britain. — Let  the  letters  of  the  prefent 
Secretary  of  (late  to  Mr.  Hammond,  the  Britifh  minifter,  and 
the  mefTage  from  the  prefident  of  the  United  States  to  congrefs, 
up  )ii  this  Subject,  be  my  vouchers.  Having  reafon  to  fuipe£l 
fuch  ill-offices  to  have  been  done  us,  wc  had  a  right  to  inSiSt 


Remarks  on   the  Treaty,  &e.  305 

that  B  nation  to  whom  we  were  about  to  bind  ourfelves,  by  more 
than  ordinary  ties  of  amitv,  fhould,  with  good  faith,  engage 
rxulicr  to  repeat  inch  i//-ojfit:es,  nor  fuffer  them  to  be  repeated 
by  »rry  of  her  fubjctb.  We  ha.!  a  right  to  expe£l  an  immedi- 
ate aiient  to  iuch  a  proportion  from  a  nation  really  difpofed  to 
enter  into  a  ftatC  of  amity  with  vis. —  Good  policy  would,  more- 
over, have  cheated  the  refervation  of  the  right  of  prohibiting 
the  importation  oi  anr/.,  ammunition,  and  warlike  flores, 
inio  ihe  United  Slates  bv  way  of  the  lakes,  although  fuch  im- 
povtro.ion  v- ..-.  not  prohibited  eilewhere.  Under  the  exifting  ar- 
ticle no  foch  ptohftmrori  can  be  made,  uulcfs  it  be  general. 
Tile  Britifh  funnels,  ftftted  at  the  port:-,  of  the  Uniied  States, 
on  iiu:  l;ikcs;  ii.ay  now  "  freely,  for  the  purpofes  of  commerce, 
>rt  all  hub  article.-,  and  tranfport  them  whithcifocver  they 
think  proper,  ami  vend  tl  em  to  whomlbever  they  pleafe,  with- 
in (he  territories  of  the  United  States" — that  is,  to  Indians  as 
as  others  It  is  not  improbable  that  a  few  years  may  fhew 
us  ivn-re  clearly  the  fuli  effect  of  this  generous  confidence  and 
indulgence. 

2d,  If  the  examples  of  France  and  Holland  may  be  cited  as. 
precedents,  it  will  be  found  that  the  treaties  with  b:tb,  (Hpulate 
for  their  good  offices  with  the  Hates  of  Barbary. — The  ftrong 
ground  that  there  is  to  fufpeel  his  Britannic  rrifcjefty's  ill-offices, 
in  that  quarter,  as  well  as  with  the  Indians,  might  have  fug- 
gctted  to  the  envoy  extraordinary  the  good  policy  of  engaging 
a  monarch  (o  remarkable  for  his  good  faith,  to  defiit  from  his 
perfections,  and  to  promife  ailiitance  in  procuring  the  enlarge- 
ment of  our  fellow  citizens  who  have  been  reduced  to  a  ftute  of 
flavery  by  thole  barbarians. 

3d,  '1  he  navigation  horn  the  lakes  into  ffiS  Atlantic  is  a 
conceffion  which  appears  to  hand  nearly  upon  the  lame  ground 
as  the  free  navigation  of  the  Miffiihppi.  In  a  treaty,  where, 
among  numberlefs  advantageous  couceffions,  the  free  navigation 
of  all  our  tide-waters  is  granted,  it  might  have  been  reafonably 
expected  that  egrefs  and  ingrefs  fhould  have  been  permitted  be- 
tv  i.eti  the  waters  of  the  lakes,  and  thofe  of  the  Atlantic.  For 
without  fuch  a  communication  between  the  different  ports  of 
the  United  States  on  the  wcflcrr,  waters,  and  upon  the  Atlan- 
tic, the  refidems  on  the  former  muff  be  conitrained  to  export 
all  their  commodities,  which  cannot  be  brought  down  the  Hud- 
fon,  or  other  let's  convenient  rou'es,  to  Great  Britain  ;  and  that 
too,  in  Britiih  ihips  :  for  the  wilds  of  the  United  States  not 
being  permitted  to  enter  the  St.  Lawrence  from  the  fea — and 
no  veiled  being  permitted  to  trade  from  Canada,  except  fuch  as 
are  Britiih,  the  citizens  of  America  (if  any  fhould  ever  obtain 


306  Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  &c. 

a  fettlemcnt  on  the  lakes)  muft  export  all  their  bulky  commo- 
dities, in  the  fhips  of  that  nation,  to  Great  Britain  or  her  co- 
lonies only.  This,  therefore,  mult  operate  as  a  monopoly  in 
favor  of  Great  Britain,  in  refpeCt.  to  all  bulky  articles,  and  gives 
her  a  preference  in  every  other:  and  though  in  this  cafe  we 
had  not  the  fame  power  of  dictating  our  own  terms,  as  in  the 
communication  with  the  Well  India  iflands,  fo  able  a  negocia- 
tor  as  the  envoy  extraordinary  was  fuppofed  to  be,  might  aflur- 
edly  have  obtained  a  conceffion  in  this  place,  as  a  retribution 
for  the  favors  granted  to  Great  Britain  in  the  other.  This  was 
the  rather  to  have  been  expected,  as  the  envoy  extraordinary 
could  not  but  be  aware  that  Spain  would  avail  herfelf  of  fo 
good  a  reafon  for  not  yielding  to  our  demand  of  the  free  navi- 
gation of  the  Miiliffippi.  Will  not  our  conceffions  in  this  trea- 
ty, ftrengthen  the  tone  of  her  refufal  ?  When  the  envoy  ex- 
traordinary, then  minifter  for  foreign  affairs,  endeavoured  to 
perfuade  congrefs  to  cede  the  navigation  of  the  Miffiffippi  to 
Spain,  for  twenty-five  years,  he  contended  that  the  acceptance 
of  fuch  a  conceilion  on  the  part  of  Spain,  would  operate  as 
a  tacit  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of  the  United  States, 
ever  after.  I  will  not  controvert  this  diplomatic  inference, 
though,  probably,  the  court  of  Spain  would  not  have  been  fo 
complaifant. — But  in  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  we  fee 
nothing  that  could,  either  immediately  or  eventually,  give  us 
the  chance  of  a  fimilar  benefit.  On  the  contrary,  the  fubject 
is  configned,  in  filence,  to  perpetual  oblivion. 

From  the  preceding  inveftigation  of  this  treaty,  are  we  not 
fully  juftihed  in  drawing  the  following  couclufion  : That 

As  a  treaty  of  amity,  it  is  partial  and  defeBive  ; 
As  a  treaty  of  commerce,  it  is  not  reciprocal  -, 
As  a  treaty  of  navigation,  it  is  humiliating ; 
And  it  is,  in   other   refpeEls,  deflruBive  to   the  profperity, 
Jecurity,  and  independence  of  the  United  States  ;  znAfub- 
verfive  of  the  constitution  ? 

I.  It  h  partial,  and  defective  as  a  treaty  of  amity ;  becaufe, 
while  it  provides  the  fullejl  fatisfaclion  for  the  pretended  caufes 
of  complaint,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain*,  no  adequate  repa- 
ration is  obtained  for  former  injuries,  and  breaches  of  faith 
towards  the  United  Statesf,  nor  any  fecurity  againft  a  wanton 

*  See  remarks  on  article  6. 

f  See  remarks  on  article  7.  See  alfo  page  303. 


Remarks  6n  the  Treaty,  &c.  307 

repetition  of  them*  :  and  becaufe  there  is  not  that  interchange 
of  good  offices  fecured  in  this,  as  in  former  treaties  between 
the  United  States  and  other  nations.-f- 

2.  As  a  treaty  of  commerce  it  is  not  reciprocal  j  becaufe- it 
concedes  to  the  merchants,  fubjects,  and  fhips  of  Great  Bri- 
tain, greater  privileges  than  are  granted  to  the  citizens  and  fhips 
of  the  United  States  within  the  territories  of  Grc  it  Britain. :£ 

3.  As  a  treaty  of  navigation  it  is  humiliating  ;  becaufe  it  ex- 
poles  the  veflels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  to 
bejloppedy  fearchedy  and  turned  out  of  their  courfe  upon  fufpiciott, 
in  cafes  where  thofe  of  Great  Britain  cannot  be  expofed  to 
fimilar  inconvenicncies||  ;  and  becaufe,  by  limiting  the  fize  of 
our  veflels,  in  certain  cafes,  it  has  an  evident  tendency  to  de- 
grade the  maritime  intereft  and  force  of  the  United  States. || 

4.  It  is,  in  other  refpecls,  deftrudtive  to  the  profperity,  fecu- 
vity  and  independence  of  the  United  States ;  becaufe  it  cedes 
to  the  fubjects  of  a  foreign  nation,  the  right  of  foil  within  an 
undefined  extent  of  territory,  whole  value  and  importance  to 
the  United  States  is  conceived  to  be  immenfe§  :  becaufe  it  ad- 
mits aliens  to  hold  and  inherit  lands  within  the  United  States, 
and  to  refide  therein,  whilft  they  may  be  fubjecls,  owing  alle- 
giance to  a  fovereign  actually  engaged  in  war  with  the  United 
States  §;  becaufe  it  tends  to  detach  us  from  our  ancient  ally, 
the  French  nation,  by  giving  a  preference  to  her  moft  inveterate 
enemy  if:  and  becaufe  it  deprives  the  United  States  of  the 
right  of  lelf-defence,  and  the  means  of  retaliation  in  cafe  of 
hcilility**,  or  unjuft  aggreffion  from  a  nation  whofe  arrogance 
and  injuitice  we  have  more  than  once  experienced. 

5.  It  is  fubverfivc  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States; 
becaufe  it  eftablifhes  a  tribunal  imcompatible  with  tiie  conftiru- 
tion,  and  affigns  to  it  jurifdiction  in  cafes  exprefsly  vetted  by 
the  conltitution  in  the  judicial  courts  of  the  United  Statesff; 
and  becaufe  the  decifions  of  this  tribunal  are  paramount  to  the 
judgments  of  the  conftitutional  courtsff ;  and  becaufe  it  tends 
to  wrelt  from  the  whole  body  of  congrefs  its  conlluutional  pow- 
ers, and  to  transfer  the  fame  to  a  part  of  chat  body  only  ;  or 


*   See  remaks  on  articles  7.  and  19.   Sec  alfo  page  303. 

f   See  page  303,   304,   305. 

J   See  remarks  011  articles  3.  12.  13.  26. 

\\   See  remarks oa  articles  ia.  17. 

§   See  remarks  on  article  9. 

\   See  remarks  on  article  18. 

••  See  remarks  on  arciclc  10. 

\\  See  remarks  on  uitiwle  6.  and  note  thereon. 


~ 


08  £l:;.*uKs  6n  the  Treaty,  tec' 


to  fubject  the  mcafures  of  one  of  the  component  parts  of  coiv; 
to  the  ablblute  controul  of  the  other  two.* 

A  variety  of  other  obfervatiotiSj  equally  important)  might* 
no  doubt,  have  fuggdled  themkrlvcs  to  a  perfon  who  had  full 
Allure  to  examine  this  fubject,  and  may  be  met  With  in  the 
feveral  publications  that  have  already  appeared.  Without  pre- 
tending to  abilities  extenfive  enough  to  embrace  the  whole,  I 
{hall  now  haiten  to  a  conclnfion. 

I  am  well  aware  that  it  will  be  contended   by  the   advofc 
for  the  treaty,   that  a  refufal  to  ratify  it  will  bring  on  a  war;  or 
muft  continue  matters  between  us  and   Great    u  itairi,   in  their 
prefent  (tate  of  unredrefled  wrong*,   a;ul  a  paffive  acquiefcence 
therein.  I  (hall  add  a  few  words  by  way  of  anfwef. 

1.   As  to  the  clanger  of  producing;  a  war.    ill,    Hie  refufal  to1 
enter  into  a  (late  of  amity,  or  Unci  commercial  connexion,  or 
to  form  a  treaty  on  any  fubjecl,   with  a  nation  with  whom  w-s 
are  at  peace,  unlefs  fuch  refufal   mould  amount  to  a  denial  of 
jull  compenfition   for  injuries  complained  of,  is  no  caufe  of 
war  between  nations.  Whenever  Great  Britain  may  choofe  to 
commence  a  war  with  the  United  States,  (lie  will  not  want  a 
pretext.  At  prefent  the  treaty   itfelf  is  the   mo'l  unequivocal 
proof,  that  fhe  hath  fcarcely  the  (hadow  of  complaint-,  for  the 
cafes   to  which  the  fixth  article  carl  extend,  even  with  all  the 
latitude   which  the  liberality   of  the  envoy  extraordinary  hath 
given  it,  are  not   attributable   to  the   want  either   of  national 
faith  or  juftice,  but  to  the  operation  of  thofe  means  of  felf-de- 
fence  which  the  law  of  nations   permits,  or  of  general   laws, 
founded  on  the  emergencies  of  the  times.  The  detention    of 
the  weftern    pofis,  alone,  would   more    than  balance   the   ac- 
count, in  a  fmgle  year,  if  (ia*«*i-accordiiig  to  the  principles  of 
juftice.  As  to  the  captures  made  within  the  junfdiclion  of  the 
United  States,  or  by   vefiels   armed   therein,    Mr.   Jefrerfon's 
letter  {hows   the  readinefs  of   our  government  to  remove  all 
caufe  of  complaint,   on    that   head.    2d,   Great  Britain  derives 
fuch  immenfe  advantages  from   her  commerce  with  America, 
that  nothing  fhort  of  a  (late  of  lunacy  could  prompt  her  to  in- 
terrupt it,  for   the  fake  of  reparation  on  either  of  the  before 
mentioned   accounts.    3d,  The   immenfe   property    which    her 
merchants,  her  monied  men,  and  even  her  fovereign  holds  in 
the  funds  and  banks  of  the  United  .States,  or  have  due  to  them 
from  individuals,   is,   until  the  prefent  treaty  ffjail  be  ratified,   a 
further  fecurity  againft  thofe  hoitile  aggreiiious,  to  which  due. 

*  See  remarks  on  ankle  12.  laft  part. 


Remarks  on  the  Treaty,  Sec.  307 

fear  of  fequeftration,  or  confifcation,  gave  fo  fudden  and  un- 
expected a  check.  4th,  She  has  her  hands  fo  full  already,  that, 
much  addicled  as  fhe  is  to  hoftility,  (he  will,  probably,  for 
the  prefent,  avoid  inereafing  the  number  of  her  enemies. 

2.  As  to  the  redrefsof  wrongs.  This  is  fo  partial  and  inade- 
quate in  the  prefent  treaty,  that  no  great  injury  can  accrue  from 
delaying  to  accept  it;  nor  does  the  treaty  contain  fuch  fecurity 
againft  the  repetition  of  them,  as  fhould  prompt  us,  on  that  ac- 
count, to  accept  of  the  partial  compenfation  that  it  holds  forth. 
Much  lefs  are  the  compenfation  and  fecurity  provided  by  the 
treaty,  fuch  as  ought  to  be  accepted  in  lieu  of  th vj re  claims  which 
are  palled  over  in  filence.  The  furrender  of  the  weftcrn  polls, 
were  it  not  by  the  terms  of  this  treaty  an  object  greatly  dimi- 
niflied  in  its  importance  to  the  United  States,  is  an  event  dill 
fo  remote  (not  to  add  uncertain)  as  not  to  jullify  the  precipitate 
adoption  of  a  meafurc  calculated  to  impair  the  value  of  the  ac- 
quilition,  or  render  it  totally  ufeiefs. 

3d,  The  fufpenfion  of  the  1 2th  article,  by  the  advice  of  the 
fenate,  having  effectually  retarded  the  final  ratification  of  the 
treaty,  the  fame  train  of  negotiation  which  mull  be  reforted 
to,  for  the  adjuilrnent  of  that  article,  fo  as  to  be  accepta!  le  o 
the  fenate,  may  doubtlefs  be  recurred  to  for  adjujling  other  ob- 
jectionable points. 

No  inconvenience,  therefore,  ean  reafonably  be  appre?; 
from  the  non-ratification  of  the  treaty  in  its  prefent  ir>\'n.   :sl    :- 
iqg  been  communicated  to   the  people,  the  exec;  tive  a 
better  able   to   form   a  judgment  of  the  public  min  I,  an 
weigh  objections  which  perhaps  had  nor  before  occur. \  I  ■ 
the  people  of  the  United  States  with  confidence  hop.,   that 
prefnient  will  not  only  attend  to  their  reafons,  but  pay  ref] 
to  the  general  will  of  that  people,  whofe  afFe&ionat  .  ncc 

r.nd  authority  he  poflefTes  on  the  prefent  momentous  occafion. 
How  far  thefe  remarks  may  accord  with  the  general  luijbes  and 
fentiiiicnts  of  the  people,  it  remains  for  him  to  determine. 


When  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  was  adopted  in 
Virginia,  the  convention,  among  the  other  amendments,  pro- 
pofed,  "  That  no  commercial  treaty  fliall  be  ratified  without 
die  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  the  Whole  number  of  the 
members  of  the  fenate;  and  no  treaty,  ceding*  contracting,  or 
fufpending  the  territ  rial  rights  or  claims  of  the  United  States 
or  any  of  them  ;  or  their  or  any  of  their  rights  or  claims  to 
fulling  in  the  American  leas,  or  navigating  the  American  rivrs, 
fliall  be  made,  bat  in  cafes  of  the  moil  urgent  and  extreme  nc  (li- 
ty  ;   nor  fliall  any  fuch  treaty  bs  ratifi  U  th:  concurrence  of 

Vol.  III.  Uu 


3i«  Plymouth  Protest. 

three-fourths  of  the  whole  number  of  members  oiboth  houjes  reipec-. 
tiv.  jy." — North  Carolina  propofed  the  fame  amendment.  On 
the  prefent  occafion,  the  people  of  the  United  States  will  be 
led  to  confider,  how  far  fome  amendment  to  this  part  of  the 
conititution  is  become  neceiTary. 

COLUMBUS, 
Virginia,  Auguft  6,   1795. 

— <  <<.^^.^^s»'id»^>  •>  ■<— 

PLYMOUTH      PROTEST. 

WHEREAS  at  a  meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
town  of  Plymouth,  on  the  28th  clay  of  October  inft. 
<<  tor  the  purpofe  cf  taking  into  ferious  confideration  the  treaty 
entered  into  by  the  prefident,  and  twenty  fenators,  and  the 
government  of  Great  Britain"  it  was  hallily  determined  lo 
difpenfc  with  the  legal  qualifications  of  voters  ;  in  confequence 
of  which  determination,  a  large  number  of  the  inhabitants 
immediately  withdrew  themfelves,  conceiving  the  meeting  to  be 
no  longer  a  legal  meeting  of  the  town.  Notwithstanding  which, 
fundry  perfons  remained,  and  calling  themfelves  the  town  of  Ply-  ■ 
tnouth,  proceeded  to  pafs  a  refolution,  reprobating  in  Itrong  and 
indecent  terms,  the  conduct  of  the  fupreme  executive  of  the 
United  States.  We,  the  fubferibers,  inhabitants  of  the  town  of 
Plymouthy  holding  in  juft  abhorrence  fuch  irregular  proceedings, 
think  it  our  duty,  publicly  to  manifelt  our  "  marked  and  pointed 
difapprvbation"  of  the  fame,  for  the  following  reafons : — 

Firjif  Becaufe  the  treaty  having  received  the  fanction  of  tho 
conllituted  authorities  (fo  far  as  depends  on  the  decifion  of  thofc 
authorities)  has  become,  in  the  language  of  the  conititution, 
♦<  the  fupreme  law  of  the  land" — any  attempts,  therefore,  to 
counteract:  its  operation,  is  an  open  and  avowed  oppofition  to 
the  general  government,  and  highly  alarming  to  the  peace  of 
the  community  ;  as  the  infurrection  in  the  weftern  counties  of 
Peunfylvania,  probably  originated  in  meetings  conducted  with 
equal  temper  and  moderation. 

Second,  Becaufe  the  perfons  afTemble.l  at  this  meeting  were 
incompetent  to  decide  qn  the  merits  of  fo  complex  an  initru- 
ment,  as  the  treaty,  very  few  of  them  ever  having  feen  or  read 
it ;  and  every  thing  relative  to  the  whole  bufinefs,  being previcujly 
prepared  by  the  original  movers  of  the  meeting,  who,  in  ail  in- 
itauces,  have  been  hoftile  to  the  federal  conititution  and  the 
fldminiftration  pf  it,  from  its  firft  eftabliflnnent. 

Third,  Bec^ui'c  fuch  meetings,  and  the  efforts  made  to  con- 
vene them,  by  practicing  on  the  paflious  of  the  honest,  though 
uninformed,  are,  iu   the  ejtjrenjiej  dangerous  in   a  republic^ 


Westmoreland  County  Resolutions.       3H 

government,  having  a  direct  tendency  to  introduce  the  empire 
of  liccntioufiirfs,  which  is  only  zfhort  prelude  to  the  more  perma* 
tjent  one  of  defpetifm. 

Fourth,  Becaufe  the  Tinctures  made  on  the  treaty,  in  the 
iforefaid  refolutlbns,  are  a  mere  repetition  of  certain  inflam- 
matory fentiments,  which  have  been  echoed  and  re-echoed  to 
the  public;  and  while  they  contain  the  mofl  unfounded,  indif- 
criminate  cenfure  on  illuftrious  and  amiable  patriots,  whofe 
important,  meritorious  fervices,  rendered  their  country,  ought 
to  endear  them  10  every  friend  of  ft,  pay  the  higheft  eulogium 
to  Stephens  Thorn/on  Mafin,  a  fenatorof  the  United  States,  for 
3  notorious  breach  of  official  confluence. 

October  30th,    1795. 

(  Sigtied  by  Seventy- two  Names.) 
-1  <i<'«><^/>»4'>  ■■>  ■ 
At  a  Meeting  of  the  Inhabitants  of  the  County  of  Weftmoreland, 
(Virginia)  convened,  in  >ce  of  written  Invitations  cir- 

culated through  the  Cbjttitry,  for  the  purpofe  of  iakitig  the  Opini- 
.011  of  the  People  on  the  Treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  United 
States  and  the  jBriiiJb  Nation,    September  2y;'h,    1795. 

JOSEPH    PIERCE,  Efquire,   Senior  Magi  (Irate,  in 

the  Chair. 

THE  treaty  was  real — and,  after  fome  explanations  of  its 
object  ami  tendency,  the  following  refolutions  were  en- 
tered into,   without  a  diflenting  voice  : 

Refolved,  That  we  continue  to  no  fiefs  undiminished  confi- 
dence in  our  government  ;  and  that  we  fincerely  believe  its  due 
prefervation,  in  all  its  parts,  efiemjal  to  our  rights,  liberties, 
and  happinefs. 

Refolved,  That  we  deem  it  the  duty  of  all  good  citizens,  to 
check,  by  every  lawful  means,  the  wicked  and  cunning  machi- 
nations employed  with  induftry  and  art,  by  certain  individuals, 
their  tools,  and  adherents,  to  withdraw  the  confidence  of  the 
people  from  their  government,  without  which  confidence,  no 
free  political  fyttem  can  long  endure;  and  that  with  deep  re- 
gret, we  have  marked  1  certain  fet  of  men,  exerting  themielves 
on  every  occafion,  which,  in  the  courfe  of  things,  has  ^refent- 
ed  itlelt,  lor  the  obvi<  fe  of  deftroying  a  government, 

eftablifhcd  by  a  majority  of  freemen,  necefiary  to  each  others 
happinefs,  and  who  have  experienced  a  wonderful  profperity 
under  the  practice  thereof. 

Refolved,  That  in    the   late  (  tiorf  with  Great  Britain, 

its  primary  object,  the   prefervation   of  peacej  has  been  com- 


3i2  President's  Answer. 

pletely  effected,  which,  of  itfclf,  is  all-important ;  and  that 
very  confiderable  additional  good  has  alfo  been  acquired  by  the 
furrender  of  the  weftern  polls,  which  leads  to  the  termination 
of  Indian  warfare,  and  compenfation  for  the  fpoliations  on  our 
commerce. 

Refolved,  therefore,  That  we  feel  ourfelves  perfectly  fatisfi- 
ed  with  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  this  late  tranf- 
action  ;  and  are  fully  perfuaded,  that  the  fame  lignal  wifdom 
and  love  of  country  which  has  invariably  marked  the  conduct 
of  the  prefident,  and  eminently  produced  good  to  his  fellow 
citizens,  will  be  found  to  have  directed  his  councils  throughout 
his  arduous  adminiflration — and  we  do,  for  ourfelves,  deter- 
mine to  fupport  and  maintain,  with  our  lives  and  our  fortunes, 
the  conftiiuted  authorities  of  our  country,  againfl.  foreign  and 
domeftic  enemies  of  every  fort  and  defcription. 

JOSEPH    PIERCE,  Chairman. 

'       PRESIDENT'S    ANSWER. 

JOSEPH    PIERCE,    Esq. 
Sir, 

I  HAVE    received  your    letter   of  the    29th  ult.   covering 
refolutions  of  a  meeting  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  county 
of  Weftmoreland  relative  to  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain. 

The  approbation  therein  given  of  this  meafure,  and  the  af- 
furances  of  fupporting  the  constituted  authorities  of  our  coun- 
try, cannot  but  be  pleafing  to  all  who  know  the  value  of  regu- 
lar government. 

No  wifli,  while  I  fill  the  office  I  now  have  the  honor  to 
hold,  can  be  more  ardent,  than  that  the  acts  of  my  admini- 
ftration  ihould  give  fatisfaction  to  my  conilituents.  The  con- 
trary will  always  give  me  pain.  I  know  but  one  fure  method  to 
merit  the  firft,  or  to  avoid  the  latter,  and  that  is,  to  purfue 
fteadily  fuch  meafures  (of  an  executive  nature)  as  appear  to 
be  moil  conducive  to  their  intereft  and  happinefs.  This,  to  the 
belt  of  my  judgment,  has  been  my  invariable  endeavor  ;  and  I 
cannot  but  hope  that  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  (agreeably 
to  the  advice  and  confent  of  the  fenate)  will  be  viewed  in  this 
light,  when  it  is  better  underftood  than  it  leems  to  be  at  pre- 

ient. For  the  expreffion  of  perfonal  confidence  in   me,  I 

feel  very  feniibly.  I  am,  Sir,  with  due  refpect, 

"Your  obedient, 

Go.  WASHINGTON. 

United  States,  pth  Oct.    1795. 

END    OF    THE    THIRD    AND    LAST    VOLUME. 


